F-16 Reference
5th Gen Fighters
|
| Author |
Message |
|
asiatrails
|
 Posted: Jul 02, 2008 - 02:29 AM
|
 
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 750
Status: Offline
|
| [quote="vertical"]
SpudmanWP wrote:
LO - You still did not answer my question....
And as for the Marines...
They NEED the USN to do anything where there is a real threat on the beach. Or just generate a meaningful amount of sorties. 8 air frames (20 in "Sea Control" config, giggle) on an LHA doesn't do diddly in the face of any opposition.
vertical
Too stupid to qualify for a reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Nov 19, 2008 - 10:43 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
DarthAmerica
|
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2008 - 03:34 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Posts: 105
Status: Offline
|
|
vertical wrote:
I assume you're referring to the Falklands here? Being very lucky, facing an opponent with inferior training/equipment, and operating at the edge of the Argie jet range doesn't validate the small jump jet air wing of a 2nd tier Navy going up against a third or even fourth tier threat. The Brits were very lucky to get away as unscathed as they did, and neither side ever really controlled the air.
There are over 20 small carriers or assault ships capable of operating an F-35 in allied fleets world wide. The vast majority of these will spend their time operating independent of the USN, French and British big deck carriers in very close proximity to threats doing everything from humanitarian to sea control operations. THEY HAVE TO OPERATE STOVL fixed wing jets if they intend to have significant air power. The Falklands conflict certainly does validate the concept. Half of those STOVL ships belong to the USN and have USMC aircrews. Many of these ships are at sea right now independent of land based or CVN based air and are the only air power available to the Combatant Commander in the event of an emergency.
The F-35B represents a VAST improvement over what was a very specialized and limited fighter force. It's ability to conduct nearly the entire range of TACAIR missions is a significant force multiplier to any SAG. In fact, the F-35B even in small numbers up to a gigglish 20 gives the LHA almost as much offensive firepower as a legacy carriers entire air wing in some circumstances when you consider that the F-35B can simultaneously perform almost all the missions of the various specialized airframes. Thats essential when you can only operate such a small number of jets from a carrier. Think about it. Of course a big deck carrier will have huge advantages in terms of combat persistence over time but the F-35B compliment is impressive none the less.
Quote:
Again, blowing up what I'm saying far beyond what I'm trying to say. All I'm saying is that the F-35 incorporates more technical risk due to trying to do so much. I am not saying other military programs don't have problems (indeed, F-35 looks pretty good compared to LCS, for example). I have no doubt everything will be worked out EVENTUALLY. But how long it takes to work everything out will affect how successful the program is in the long run.
OK, I don't think anyone is doubting that the F-35 includes more technical risk than a specialized aircraft. The aircraft is being asked to do more than legacy aircraft because analysis have determined that to be a desired capability. Nothing suggest those risk won't be worked out or that they are any more significant than all past programs. The F-35 looks good compared to almost all past programs and it cost far less than what a bunch of specialized aircraft would have cost to cover the same range missions.
Quote:
My assertions that the F-35 is more difficult from an engineering standpoint than your typical multirole fighter and that the USMC needs the USN to take on any sizable threat are only inaccurate when you work so hard to considerably blow them up from what I am actually saying.
I'm saying it's technically riskier than most programs and you are coming at me as if I'm saying I think it won't work.
vertical
No, I agree there are more technical issues with such an advanced aircraft but that is obvious. I strongly disagree that the USMC aviation needs USN aviation to take on significant threats and I can post data and operational requirements all day to support it. The USMC operates a fully independent air force of substantial size tailored to it's unique mission requirements. Again, you need to read the USMC aviation road map so that you can see what a VMFA(AW), VMAQ or VMA is required to do. Or just look at what they are doing in a real war...
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.79354 ... &hl=en
...F-35B's replacing those AV-8Bs would represent a substantial improvement in airpower and you can bet many would take notice of ~20 USMC multirole STOVL stealth fighters within unrefueled range of their capitals. So too would the insurgents below notice a vastly superior aircraft hunting them with increased frequency, Situational Awareness and accuracy. The thing could probably even detect footprints on the ground using CCD!
USMC aviation is just as independent as Destiny's Child. youtube.com/watch?v=WuMmfDWMLgY (Just a little eye candy and levity lest we all get too serious... )
-DA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LowObservable
|
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2008 - 01:08 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2007
Posts: 141
Status: Offline
|
| Darth - One point here is that you need to consider not only the fact that the F-35B can operate in a wide range of fighter missions, but that you then have to be able to apply that capability operationally. This is the issue that the UK had to face. If you didn't have an air threat, then you didn't need everything that you paid for in the F-35B; but if you did, then you needed enough F-35s on the deck to do CAP and strike at the same time, or you'd just built the world's biggest self-licking lollipop. Then you need AEW and ASW and lo and behold, it doesn't matter how small of a deck the F-35 can fly off, you end up with a Forrestal-sized ship to hold all those F-4-size jets. The USN is quietly going the same way with the LHA-6, without a well deck to increase volume for aviation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
asiatrails
|
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2008 - 02:29 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 750
Status: Offline
|
|
LowObservable wrote:
Darth - One point here is that you need to consider not only the fact that the F-35B can operate in a wide range of fighter missions, but that you then have to be able to apply that capability operationally. This is the issue that the UK had to face. If you didn't have an air threat, then you didn't need everything that you paid for in the F-35B; but if you did, then you needed enough F-35s on the deck to do CAP and strike at the same time, or you'd just built the world's biggest self-licking lollipop. Then you need AEW and ASW and lo and behold, it doesn't matter how small of a deck the F-35 can fly off, you end up with a Forrestal-sized ship to hold all those F-4-size jets. The USN is quietly going the same way with the LHA-6, without a well deck to increase volume for aviation.
Well said, in time of combat you have to do with what works. This ship did not return from the Falklands.
Captain Ian North and seven others were lost after being hit by Exocets from two Super Etendard's. They were able to keep the fires at bay and the ship afloat long enough to fly off the most critical aircraft and supplies. 25 May 1982.
If the attack had happened two days earlier, I might not be here.
. |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
40.14 KB |
| Viewed: |
1255 Time(s) |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
92.79 KB |
| Viewed: |
1255 Time(s) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DarthAmerica
|
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2008 - 03:03 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Posts: 105
Status: Offline
|
|
LowObservable wrote:
Darth - One point here is that you need to consider not only the fact that the F-35B can operate in a wide range of fighter missions, but that you then have to be able to apply that capability operationally. This is the issue that the UK had to face. If you didn't have an air threat, then you didn't need everything that you paid for in the F-35B; but if you did, then you needed enough F-35s on the deck to do CAP and strike at the same time, or you'd just built the world's biggest self-licking lollipop. Then you need AEW and ASW and lo and behold, it doesn't matter how small of a deck the F-35 can fly off, you end up with a Forrestal-sized ship to hold all those F-4-size jets. The USN is quietly going the same way with the LHA-6, without a well deck to increase volume for aviation.
I did consider it. The USN/USMC probably spend 90% of their time dealing with MOOTW and small scale crisis response or time critical strike operations like what recently happened in Somalia or Pakistan. They also fight as carriers in arger conflicts. AEW or ASW aircraft can be helos or wide bodied long range systems like the P-3 or E-3 and supported by USAF tankers. They are force multipliers rather than necessities and don't have to be organic. Great to have but not always immediately available to an ESG. There are two ESG operating independently in the 5th Fleet and 6th Fleet AORs right now conducting combat operations. There is also one on the Pacific side of South America/Mexico vicinity as well. So they can and often do operate independently as I stated earlier.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... mp;tid=400
EDIT:RE: Atlantic Conveyor.
A lot of differences between it and a warship that contributed to it's loss. Damage Control, construction countermeasures ect. Also, it was only acting as a transport and not a carrier.
-DA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
