With the U.S. F-35 Grounded, Putin’s New Jet Beats US Hands-Down.....

[US Conservative]

Yes and no, yes and no.

VTOL also greatly reduces the ordinance load the aircraft is capable of using, and also the range and speed most of the time.

On the battlefield, it's actual use is rather limited, since you still have to bring fuel and ordinance to the airfield that is being used, even if it is just an LZ sized piece of land or a highway.

However, in the amphibious role it is a big help, since that means it can be operated from almost any ship. The British had even made do with converting container ships as emergency aircraft carriers in the past (with questionable results).

On those container ships, I read that there is a company that sells a "kit" to turn tankers/etc into a poor mans aircraft carrier out there.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You'd know better than I would, but the article also mentioned that VTOL/STOL aren't used in the mud (still requiring an asphalt/concrete landing pad that can actually melt away) because it can suck mud and debris into the engine. Elsewhere I read that the marines rarely actually use them for vertical takeoff/landing because it greatly reduces payload, range, loiter time, and stresses the airframe greatly.

I recognize the benefits and drawbacks of a compromise design, but I wonder if the VTOL aspect was too much of a compromise-my biggest concern being that it reduces the overall flexibility of the aircraft where its most likely to be needed and used vs one specific niche role where it would be useful.

The chinese ripoff may be just for show-but it seems like a sleeker design with twin engines would have been preferable in most situations.

ROFL!

"Air to mud" is slang for an aircraft firing at targets on the ground (as opposed to "air to air"). The A-10 is probably the best known "air to mud" fighter.

And if this does follow the role as replacement for the current Harriers and Hornets, only a fraction of Marine units will convert to the F-35B VSTOL version anyways. Most will use the F-35C CATOBAR variant, just like they use the F-18 as opposed to the AV8B. In reality only a few units really need the B version, and they primarily operate with the Amphibious groups, operating primarily as a CAP over the amphibious group, and in a strike mode if conditions permit it (little to no air threat to the group).

And yes, the preferred "primitive airbase" is generally an improved paved highway of 2 lanes or more. This lets them operate in STO configuration, and in V or S configuration in landing. But that kind of operating condition is not really expected to happen to much, because of the large logistical needs of maintaining any offensive aircraft. It is really not as simple as setting up in a big field (like in "True Lies"). It literally needs an ad-hoc air base.

RADAR and ground controllers to control inbound and outbound aircraft. Fuel trucks, fuelers, ordinance, ordinance handlers to reload the aircraft, bunkers for the ordinance, and defensive personnel to defend this new mini-airbase. That is a lot of manpower and equipment to have to move around, and it is just not realistic most of the time. Much more realistic to simply have them operate off of their ships.

However, one way they can be used (and have been) is that they can be quickly used from damaged air bases. The USAF-USN can crater the heck out of an enemy occupied air base, rendering it dead for the use of the enemy. Then once our ground forces take it over they can operate a VSTOL like a Harrier or F-35B from it until the runways are repaired to allow more conventional aircraft to be operated from it again.

And I agree, that the requirements of the B variation have also limited the capabilities of the other 2 versions. But the simple fact is, a new replacement VSTOL aircraft was badly needed. And there was no way that the Marines were going to be given permission to build a "Harrier III". There are still huge questions that they will ever be able to replace their aging CH-53 fleet with the CH-53K King Stallion. Neither the Air Force nor the Army wanted to jump onto this project, and many watchers think it will just die because the Marines is simply not granted the kind of budget to allow them to replace their antiquated equipment.

Like the AH-1 Sea Cobra. It still shocks people to learn that the only attack helicopter of the Corps is the venerable AH-1 Cobra, a 50 year old design (and most aircraft date to the 1970's - navalized versions of surplus Army AH-1 Cobras when they upgraded to the AH-64). There were a small number of modernized AH-1Z craft made in the early 2000's, and production of new aircraft was authorized but was then suspended because of budget issues. So the Corps still gets 30-40 year old helicopters to use, the Army gets modern AH-64 Apaches.

 

[Oozlefinch]

On those container ships, I read that there is a company that sells a "kit" to turn tankers/etc into a poor mans aircraft carrier out there.

Well, unless the nation is capable of operating helicopters from them or VTOL aircraft, what is the purpose?

Actually doing a conversion is actually pretty damned cheap. The UK did it in around 2 weeks.

And they built 2 ships like that. That is the SS Atlantic Conveyor, the other was the SS Atlantic Causeway.

And the biggest problem with this conversion is simply that they are not warships. They lack the armor, integrity, and damage control capabilities of warships, and this is the result:

Consider this. The SS Atlantic Conveyor was hit with 2 Exocet missiles, burned out of control and sank.

The USS Stark was hit with 2 Exocet missiles, took serious damage, spent a year undergoing repairs, and served for another 12 years afterwards until she was retired (along with the rest of the Perry class frigates).

 

[US Conservative]

ROFL!

"Air to mud" is slang for an aircraft firing at targets on the ground (as opposed to "air to air"). The A-10 is probably the best known "air to mud" fighter.

And if this does follow the role as replacement for the current Harriers and Hornets, only a fraction of Marine units will convert to the F-35B VSTOL version anyways. Most will use the F-35C CATOBAR variant, just like they use the F-18 as opposed to the AV8B. In reality only a few units really need the B version, and they primarily operate with the Amphibious groups, operating primarily as a CAP over the amphibious group, and in a strike mode if conditions permit it (little to no air threat to the group).

And yes, the preferred "primitive airbase" is generally an improved paved highway of 2 lanes or more. This lets them operate in STO configuration, and in V or S configuration in landing. But that kind of operating condition is not really expected to happen to much, because of the large logistical needs of maintaining any offensive aircraft. It is really not as simple as setting up in a big field (like in "True Lies"). It literally needs an ad-hoc air base.

RADAR and ground controllers to control inbound and outbound aircraft. Fuel trucks, fuelers, ordinance, ordinance handlers to reload the aircraft, bunkers for the ordinance, and defensive personnel to defend this new mini-airbase. That is a lot of manpower and equipment to have to move around, and it is just not realistic most of the time. Much more realistic to simply have them operate off of their ships.

However, one way they can be used (and have been) is that they can be quickly used from damaged air bases. The USAF-USN can crater the heck out of an enemy occupied air base, rendering it dead for the use of the enemy. Then once our ground forces take it over they can operate a VSTOL like a Harrier or F-35B from it until the runways are repaired to allow more conventional aircraft to be operated from it again.

And I agree, that the requirements of the B variation have also limited the capabilities of the other 2 versions. But the simple fact is, a new replacement VSTOL aircraft was badly needed. And there was no way that the Marines were going to be given permission to build a "Harrier III". There are still huge questions that they will ever be able to replace their aging CH-53 fleet with the CH-53K King Stallion. Neither the Air Force nor the Army wanted to jump onto this project, and many watchers think it will just die because the Marines is simply not granted the kind of budget to allow them to replace their antiquated equipment.

Like the AH-1 Sea Cobra. It still shocks people to learn that the only attack helicopter of the Corps is the venerable AH-1 Cobra, a 50 year old design (and most aircraft date to the 1970's - navalized versions of surplus Army AH-1 Cobras when they upgraded to the AH-64). There were a small number of modernized AH-1Z craft made in the early 2000's, and production of new aircraft was authorized but was then suspended because of budget issues. So the Corps still gets 30-40 year old helicopters to use, the Army gets modern AH-64 Apaches.

I see, thought by air to mud you meant landing at improvised sites.
Heres a vid comparing the B and C.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Again, why would we need new stealth bombers and such when the world is essentially nuclear at this point?

It is?

Tell me then, when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used in war, eh?

And what do you think one of the main delivery systems for such a "nuclear" war would be, eh? Maybe, perhaps, a "stealth bomber"?

Think strategic, not political.

 

[Dovkan]

It is?

Tell me then, when was the last time a nuclear weapon was used in war, eh?

And what do you think one of the main delivery systems for such a "nuclear" war would be, eh? Maybe, perhaps, a "stealth bomber"?

Think strategic, not political.

World war 2. Really? We have adequate delivery methods, missiles? Anyone? I am thinking about this, it's not hard.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I see, thought by air to mud you meant landing at improvised sites.
Heres a vid comparing the B and C.

The term "Air to Mud" comes from the Air Force, which generally holds in contempt shooting any target that is not piloted by another "Knight of the skies" like themselves.

 

[Oozlefinch]

World war 2. Really? We have adequate delivery methods, missiles? Anyone? I am thinking about this, it's not hard.

And when have we delivered any since WWII?

If none have been used in combat in almost 70 years, why are you even bringing them up? Might as well bring up the use of horse borne cavalry (which has actually been used more recently then nuclear weapons have been).

The problem is that you are not thinking about this militarily. Nuclear weapons are political, not military. And the fact that they have not been used in over 69 years screams that they should be ignored as a consideration.

 

[Dovkan]

And when have we delivered any since WWII?

If none have been used in combat in almost 70 years, why are you even bringing them up? Might as well bring up the use of horse borne cavalry (which has actually been used more recently then nuclear weapons have been).

The problem is that you are not thinking about this militarily. Nuclear weapons are political, not military. And the fact that they have not been used in over 69 years screams that they should be ignored as a consideration.

Meh, whatever you think, you know more then me on this subject.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

With the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter still in limbo over reliability problems, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s administration on Monday said it would begin regular production of its newest fighter jet, the T-50, next year. According to state-run media, the Russian military will begin mass-producing the advanced fighter jet in several versions, and will also begin making models that will be available for export.

Experts estimate that the F-35 remains years away from deployment in a combat situation, despite assurances to the contrary from the Pentagon. At the moment, that isn’t a major security issue. The F-22, for all its problems, is currently without real competition in the battle for the skies. However, if the Russian T-50 is true to its specification, that could change in the not-too-distant future.

The T-50 is significantly faster than the F-22, and has a huge advantage in terms of range – 5,500 kilometers compared to the F-22’s 3,400. The T-50’s detection systems allow it to spot incoming threats at a distance of up to 400 kilometers, compared to the F-22’s 210 km. Most experts believe that the F-35 would be the dominant plane, should it ever come on line in the form its supporters have promised. But a continuous delay in production leaves Russia with the most dominant fighter jet on the planet.....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-f-35-grounded-putin-101500633.html

Is our Air Force even ready for any of this? Does the US Air Force have serious problems? What say ye?

MMC - take a look at that plane - it might have some stealthy components, but it is not a stealthy aircraft. The engines are not covered by a stealthy material nor are they shrouded in order to diminish the IR signature. What's more, look at the intakes - they are not molded into the airframe, and they are fairly square in the front part of the intake - and unless their research into stealthy materials has made strides beyond our own, perpendicular surfaces are a big no-no when it comes to building a stealthy aircraft. There's other, smaller stealth-adverse areas on the plane, but overall...no, that's not a stealthy aircraft.

 

[MMC]

MMC - take a look at that plane - it might have some stealthy components, but it is not a stealthy aircraft. The engines are not covered by a stealthy material nor are they shrouded in order to diminish the IR signature. What's more, look at the intakes - they are not molded into the airframe, and they are fairly square in the front part of the intake - and unless their research into stealthy materials has made strides beyond our own, perpendicular surfaces are a big no-no when it comes to building a stealthy aircraft. There's other, smaller stealth-adverse areas on the plane, but overall...no, that's not a stealthy aircraft.

Heya Glen. :2wave: It appears Russia has problems with their production line for the moment. Moreover its not so much its stealth. Its their detection system that gives them a slight edge, if its true

 

[Oozlefinch]

There's other, smaller stealth-adverse areas on the plane, but overall...no, that's not a stealthy aircraft.

Actually, a lot of stealth is variable.

Depending upon the type of RADAR expected, aircraft profiles have to be changed in different ways. The same with the expected approach angle of a suspected enemy aircraft.

It is very possible to design an aircraft to provide stealth characteristics from certain angles, but not others. For example, from the front from a top down perspective, while not having a noticeably reduced profile from the underside. Or a design designed to be more effective against a pulse style RADAR, but not against a Doppler style.

And odds are, that aircraft is stealthy. The SR-71 was "stealthy", as was the YB-49. That does not mean that they were "stealth" however.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Actually, a lot of stealth is variable.

Very true - I remember a few years back how the Russians were trying to develop stealth by emitting plasma around the airframe in order to 'cloak' it from radar. I don't know how well that one turned out, but if it had been successful, any aircraft at all could be made 'stealthy'.

Depending upon the type of RADAR expected, aircraft profiles have to be changed in different ways. The same with the expected approach angle of a suspected enemy aircraft.

Y'know, the fact that you referred to 'radar' in all caps tells me that you're old-school, and determined to use proper acronyms, even though most people have forgotten that it is indeed an acronym. But as to your point, if I understand stealth correctly, the one angle that must be most reduced (if not avoided altogether) is one that is perpendicular to level flight...and those engine intake shrouds are perpendicular to level flight.

It is very possible to design an aircraft to provide stealth characteristics from certain angles, but not others. For example, from the front from a top down perspective, while not having a noticeably reduced profile from the underside. Or a design designed to be more effective against a pulse style RADAR, but not against a Doppler style.

Quite true. And that's in addition to the possible use of radar-absorbing materials.

And odds are, that aircraft is stealthy. The SR-71 was "stealthy", as was the YB-49. That does not mean that they were "stealth" however.

I will agree that it's almost certainly less easy to detect on most radars than, say, our F-16 or our F/A-18, but unless they've got a tech of which I'm unaware (and I admit I've got that dangerous 'little knowledge' problem), there's too many perpendicular surfaces for it to be as stealthy as our F-35 will be (if half the positive assumptions about the F-35 turn out to be true).

 

[Oozlefinch]

Y'know, the fact that you referred to 'radar' in all caps tells me that you're old-school, and determined to use proper acronyms, even though most people have forgotten that it is indeed an acronym. But as to your point, if I understand stealth correctly, the one angle that must be most reduced (if not avoided altogether) is one that is perpendicular to level flight...and those engine intake shrouds are perpendicular to level flight.

Quite true. And that's in addition to the possible use of radar-absorbing materials.

Well, these two really go together for what I am talking about.

Those engine shrouds you are talking about, because they are only on the underside of an aircraft, they would have no effect if the source of the RADAR was coming from above the aircraft. At that angle they would be in the shadow of the aircraft itself, so would not matter. So if say the flight profile by doctrine was to linger below advancing aircraft and attack from under them, then this would be a non-issue.

The reverse with things like upper flight controls would apply if more effort was placed in applying stealth on the underside, but not the top of the aircraft.

But yea, I always try to use capital letters if I am using an acronym. SONAR, RADAR, TWAIN, FUBAR, PATRIOT, AEGIS, VOIP, LASER, I always try to use them correctly because that is simply how they should be used. In fact, I often find it funny when many people are not even aware that those are acronyms at all in the first place.