Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pratt To Test Upgraded F135 This Year  
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...st-upgraded-f135-this-year-382781/

Basically, potentially 5% more thrust over the standard F135 for the F-35. The upgrade in the hot section could also be used to improve fuel efficiency, and potentially be back fitted to the F119 engine for the F-22.

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5855 times:

Also out today on FlightGlobal was news that Pratt will also be testing the AETD adaptive fan for their variable cycle engine in a month. The new core will be tested in 2015, and it will be based on the F135 core but with more stages and more advanced alloys for a higher compression ratio.

The AETD engine which is designed to fit the F-35 is supposed to have a minimum 10% thrust bump over the current 43K F135 and minimum 25% better fuel efficiency. 50K thrust would go a long way to improving kinematic performance.

Being variable cycle, I would also assume the AETD engine would give the F-35 true supercruise capability as well as higher top-end, maybe mach 1.8+ depending on what the inlet can handle.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ptive-fan-in-about-a-month-382726/


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5830 times:

Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 1):
Also out today on FlightGlobal was news that Pratt will also be testing the AETD adaptive fan for their variable cycle engine in a month. The new core will be tested in 2015, and it will be based on the F135 core but with more stages and more advanced alloys for a higher compression ratio.

The AETD engine which is designed to fit the F-35 is supposed to have a minimum 10% thrust bump over the current 43K F135 and minimum 25% better fuel efficiency. 50K thrust would go a long way to improving kinematic performance.

Being variable cycle, I would also assume the AETD engine would give the F-35 true supercruise capability as well as higher top-end, maybe mach 1.8+ depending on what the inlet can handle.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...2726/

Keep this up, and we could end up with a situation like the F-16... later variants of the F-16 had over 27% more thrust than the original version. And nothing accelerates like a clean F-16 Block 52 other than a F-22.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

I love how F-35 haters rage on the F-35 about how it is not meeting full specs NOW. They forget that engines are something that are developed somewhat separate from the jet. They also forget the jet is in development... it will get better.

Imagine in 2016 a F-35 with both new technologies getting 15% more thrust and 25-30% better fuel consumption!


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5676 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 3):

Especially when you consider how long this aircraft will be the frontline fighter. Its not like the 1950's anymore when new fighters were coming every couple years and only lasted in service a couple years.

Technically, the F-22 first flew in 1990 and didn't enter service until late 2005 and even then its still not up to full capability in terms of using the AIM-9X and AIM-120D.

...the days when an aircraft like the F-15 could enter service 3 years after first flight are long over.

I am hopeful that over the next few years, more weight can be taken out of the CTOL variant to get it back to the original goal of 26,300 lbs empty.

That's the other advantage of internal weapons storage and monster fuel capacity. The F-35 won't gain weight like legacy fighters have over the years.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5665 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 3):
I love how F-35 haters rage on the F-35 about how it is not meeting full specs NOW.

I love how F-35 haters foam at the mouth whenever something negative is published by a left leaning newspaper. They seem to forget that their opinion doesn't influence the outcome anyway. So why all the whining and complaining?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5565 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 5):
So why all the whining and complaining?

For the same reason you air your personal opinion in support of the F-35 all the time.


Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 4):
That's the other advantage of internal weapons storage and monster fuel capacity. The F-35 won't gain weight like legacy fighters have over the years.

The higher thrust AETD engine with more stages won't be heavier? The frame cracks that still need fixing won't add weight to the LRIP design? Higher speeds and stresses won't mean even more structural reinforcement over the current LRIP crack prone versions? We haven't even gotten to the tail hook redesign yet. If it turns out it has to be placed differently, a redesign is in store.

I think it's way to early to declare the weight issue is clear on the F-35. It's far from clear. There is still a lot of risk there, just in that metric.

Since the F-35 is so aerodynamically bloated, draggy and inefficient - I am not sure how much power actually helps the F-35 get on par with other fighters, say in transonic acceleration. It will never get close as it's at least 1 minute or more slower than a Typhoon in transonic acceleration. I assume by a similar amount compared against other modern fighters.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
The higher thrust AETD engine with more stages won't be heavier? The frame cracks that still need fixing won't add weight to the LRIP design? Higher speeds and stresses won't mean even more structural reinforcement over the current LRIP crack prone versions?

The F-16 had issues with frame cracking as well, and that was a design issue that was discovered well after introduction to service. The bulkhead tended to crack excessively due to the rigors of service, especially for the earlier variants (Blocks 1-15).

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
We haven't even gotten to the tail hook redesign yet. If it turns out it has to be placed differently, a redesign is in store.

That's been fixed. The re-profiled hook point was successful 5 out of 8 landings, with the remaining 3 bolters caused by the pilot landed the aircraft too far from the wire. They have yet to install the dampener and tests with the dampener are expected to start this year.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
Since the F-35 is so aerodynamically bloated, draggy and inefficient - I am not sure how much power actually helps the F-35 get on par with other fighters, say in transonic acceleration.

There is no one simple answer to this, as it gets back to the Eurofighter vs F-35 argument again.

The Eurofighter and F-35 are very different designs with very different concepts of operation.

The Eurofighter was designed primarily for air to air with a heavy emphasis on speed and maneuverability, particularly at higher speeds and altitudes. Conversely, the F-35 was designed primarily as a strike fighter, dangerous in an air to air mission, but with a design optimized to carry out long-range strike missions as well.

At lower speeds(transonic and below) and altitudes where the F-35 is optimized the two will offer similar performance. At higher speeds and altitudes the Eurofighter gains the advantage.

Overall a Eurofighter will have a kinematic advantage over an F-35 while an F-35 will have a large advantage in stealth/situational awareness and avionics in general. The issue then becomes a problem of tactics; you develop air combat tactics to match the strengths of your aircraft to make sure that you get off the first shot and maximize the probability of success, while minimizing the weaknesses at the same time. Remember, maneuverability has always been good, but it has NEVER been the one and only key to victory.

Basically, a enemy platform only has the advantage when your pilots fought on it's terms and did not play to their own advantages. Refuse to fight on their terms and the tables get turned on the enemy.

A comparison can be made going back to the Vietnam War between the F-4 and the MiG-17; the F-4 had a better radar system and could engage from BVR, and had a significantly better climb rate and acceleration that allowed it to enter and exit fights as the pilot requires. The MiG-17 was better at lower speeds and could turn tighter. An F-4 pilot was trained and instructed to take advantage of his strengths and avoid getting into fights where his aircraft was the weakest.

It isn't really a question of who would kill who to determine which is "better." That is almost exclusively something fanboys concern themselves with.

In the real world the question is one of how each plane fits into the broader system. The Eurofighter is faster and more maneuverable, but it needs to be as that is primarily how it fights and survives. The F-35 is neither slow nor unmaneuverable, but by virtue of its stealth it can operate places a Eurofighter can not and generally possess a lot of advantages that a Eurofighter doesn't have. By virtue of the F-35's stealthy signature and superior avionics and sensors, a F-35 pilot will gain crucial moments to build an understanding of potentially lethal situations. It will allow the F-35 pilot to maneuver to a position of advantage and take high percentage shots against unwitting or less-witting opponents, or if the F-35 pilot decides, to avoid a fight altogether.

I remember that there was a lot of crowing and boasting from the Typhoon community about when they went up against the F-22, they manged to score some kills. Under certain regimes (e.g. getting into a merge with no pre-merge shots, as clean as possible), a Typhoon is better than the F-22. However, in other regimes, a F-22 is vastly superior to the Typhoon.

[Edited 2013-02-27 16:05:22]

User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5515 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):

Point taken.

One would HOPE anyway that with an internal weapon/fuel carriage aircraft like the F-35 empty weight wouldn't increase like it did from the F-15A to the F-15E (4000 lbs) or from the F-16A (block 10) at 15,600 lbs to the block 52 at 19,200 lbs. (3600 lbs). Which had major structural beef-ups plus the weight of adding semi-permenant conformal tanks.

The F-35 already has all this because it is designed with robust A to G capability in mind, unlike the 15 and 16 (as originally built).

I'm not saying the F-35 is perfect or ideal in anyway, but with these upgrades it should represent a next step up from legacy fighters based on the engine/airframe merits, not just on electronic sophistication and superiority.

If the only reason the F-35 was better was because of its newer electronics, sit. awareness, etc., then there would be no legitimate case for it, as all those things could be back-fitted to new-build legacy aircraft.

Internal carriage, low visibility and much greater internal fuel are airframe attributes that are superior to legacy fighters. But I agree that kinematic performance should be significantly better than legacy aircraft at similar loads, and the AETD engine plus (reasonable) future weight reductions should make that possible, in theory.

Honestly, in terms of top speed, I have little doubt that the F-35 as is, is already mach 1.8+ capable given the amount of time spent at 1.6 in testing, but I think it would only help for publicity if they would advertise it as such. The heat loading diff. at that speed range is minimal.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 3):
I love how F-35 haters rage on the F-35 about how it is not meeting full specs NOW.

Mainly because we're paying (much more than LM said we would) NOW.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5475 times:

It's clear the F-35 is going to get heavier, not lighter. A heavier engine, a heavier beefed up frame and modifications to mitigate cracking and mods to carrying more A2A missiles... The kinematic performance of he F-35 is dead last among a list of existing modern designs already in service. Giving the F-35 even 25% more power won't put it out front, as it starts out so far behind as it is.

Let's be honest, the F-35 is promised to cruise in at 25,000 feet over enemy territory going subsonic in RADAR stealth and using RADAR stealth, supposedly go where no other plane can. That's the philosophy and the sales pitch.

Not because of better speed, better agility, or better kinematic performance - it's inferior on all those counts.

A 25% stronger engine won't change the equation or tactics one bit.

The flip side of that coin, is that the enemy is developing countermeasures and tactics to this radar stealth feature. The new A2A missiles are LOAL capable or will be - Lock on after Launch and IR guided, like the French Micra or AIM 9X. These are very dangerous to an F-35, even if launched after the F-35 launches theirs but before it hits. A first launch does not guarantee you will not also get hit.

The 2 BVR AIM-120s the F-35 carries, are radar guided missiles and I assume they can be jammed with the right jammer. IR guided missiles are harder to fool. If this happens, the F-35s is in a bad spot and can't run away.

Basically the F-35 is designed to fight against a radar war of yesteryear. But how is the F-35 supposed to fight against passive IRST (Infrared Search and Track) systems, that can see an F-35 from over 50 miles out and against IR guided BVR missiles that have LOAL (Lock on after launch) capability?

But the most important question left unanswered here is - Against which potential enemy do we need the capabilities of the F-35, considering we already have the stealthy B-2 and countless rockets and cruise missiles? Who is the enemy? If there is none, there is no reason for this weapon. If this question can not be answered, why are we building this?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Mainly because we're paying (much more than LM said we would) NOW.

Because the government tacked on equipment and caused cost increases through buying less than expected numbers, which increased the per unit costs because you don't gain manufacturing efficiencies.

And this is still a developmental aircraft; I don't expect prototypes to be as capable as the final product. Also, F-35 will be continued to be upgraded and developed over time, much like the F-16. The first F-16 could only carry Sidewinders and dumb bombs. Today's F-16's can carry a wide assortment of weapons that the first F-16's never could carry or use. Part of is because we stuffed more avionics and sensors into the F-16, which added more weight.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
It's clear the F-35 is going to get heavier, not lighter.

Every aircraft gets heavier. You are stating the obvious. Compare the weight of a first production F-16 to the latest ones off the line. Are the latest ones off the line better than the earliest versions? Yep, the latest F-16's have better acceleration, are BVR capable, and can use more weapons than the first F-16 off the line. If that weight increase goes to improve range, a more powerful engine, more weapons, better sensors and avionics, its an acceptable tradeoff.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
The kinematic performance of he F-35 is dead last among a list of existing modern designs already in service.

Kinematic performance is only a small factor in air combat. What often matters more is better sensors, better avionics, better training, and better weapons.

Also, note the overall trends in air combat; back in the day you had to point a missile's seeker at its target by pointing your whole jet. This is what drove a lot of tactics. The whole idea was to be able to point your nose at the other guy while preventing him from doing the same to you.

Since the 80's weapons have emerged that can sync their seekers up with a helmet mounted sight or radar, allowing a fighter to target something that it was not pointed at. This effectively expanded the engagement zone of these weapons to include most of a plane's forward hemisphere.

Also, the much vaunted kinematic performance of the Typhoon didn't help it win the bid for MMRCA. Future air combat shouldn't be measured by legacy gen of criteria. A F-86 Sabre should not be measured using the same criteria as the P-51 was.

The bottom line is kinematics doesn't mean an automatic win, it hasn't before and with technology improving its even less true now. Iraq had MiG-29s but it was a unmaneuverable MiG-25 Foxbat that scored for the Iraqi's the only confirmed kill in the war in air to air combat, and there was no dog fight; it zipped in, shot and zipped out, presumably while the F/A-18 was hunting SAMs and thus distracted. I don't think there is ANY argument that the Hornet is considerably more maneuverable than a MiG-25 ever is, and it didn't make a bit of difference as the Hornet was too busy hunting SAMs to find and eliminate the Foxbat. Not only will F-35s spend less time SAM hunting or watching their backs for SAM's, they will have better situational awareness and would have detected the Foxbat. What happens after that? AMRAAM kill? Merge? I don't know, but Scott Speicher probably would have had a better chance now, and might even be alive today than before because he was literally sucker punched by that MiG-25 as that MiG caught him while he was distracted and in a bad situation.

Lets talk about the big picture. Let's talk about Boyd and the OODA loop. the OODA loop is not about who has the best maneuvering airplane, its about the guy who can sum up the situation and act quickly and put the enemy on the defensive. Think about what makes a fighter jet great under the OODA loop; the fighter needs to have better sensors and better avionics that can display the information to the pilot in a manner in which it is understandable and can be easily acted upon. Because I better understand the battlespace and know what's going on around me, I can act faster to events.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
A 25% stronger engine won't change the equation or tactics one bit.

The F-4 Phantom II would like to have word with you on that front!

It can equate to two things: better acceleration and more range. I will have more ability to either enter a fight that I want to fight, or exit one when I had enough. I also could have more staying power in a prolonged fight, as I won't run out of gas so fast.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
The new A2A missiles are LOAL capable or will be - Lock on after Launch and IR guided, like the French Micra or AIM 9X. These are very dangerous to an F-35, even if launched after the F-35 launches theirs but before it hits. A first launch does not guarantee you will not also get hit.

F-35 will have those LOAL weapons; AIM-120 is a LOAL missile, and F-35 will also have ASRAAM and AIM-9X Block II. Also, the AIM-120 will do it just fine as a close in weapon and it has a data link to take input and guidance from the F-35.

Also, one of the most obvious issues is that even in a lock on after launch scenario something has to be able to tell the missile where the target is and no fighter operating today has the ability to look behind it without turning the whole plane other than the F-35. The F-35 has a 360 degree coverage of sensors that allows a F-35 to guide a weapon against any target, no matter where the target is in relation to the F-35. Previous aircraft don't have this sort of capability.

In addition, the pilot that gets the first shot usually will get the kill or be able to defeat his opponent. I shoot a missile at you first, and you are forced to go straight to the defensive, trying to defeat my weapon and you won't be able to engage me while you are at it. I can then keep you on the defensive, close in and follow up with another shot while you are at a disadvantage.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
The 2 BVR AIM-120s the F-35 carries, are radar guided missiles and I assume they can be jammed with the right jammer. IR guided missiles are harder to fool. If this happens, the F-35s is in a bad spot and can't run away.

Any IR missile can be spoofed, or even have it's sensors totally confused. Such systems are already being employed today, such as AN/AAQ-24.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
Against which potential enemy do we need the capabilities of the F-35, considering we already have the stealthy B-2 and countless rockets and cruise missiles?

You mean the 20 B-2's we got (not a whole lot by any measure), which are totally vulnerable against fighters, and thus need continuous protection against enemy fighters?

And do realize that the US cruise missile inventory is rapidly aging; for example, the USN Harpoon missile inventory was primarily produced in the 1980's; they are set to be life-expired in a decade. Procurement of cruise missiles is very low; the US military only orders at most a couple dozen per year, and we will rapidly deplete the inventory of these weapons in any sort of sustained conflict.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
Who is the enemy? If there is none, there is no reason for this weapon.

We got a nice little dispute brewing in the East China Sea between Japan and China where the US will get dragged into if there is a little shooting conflict. Don't forget the nice little disputes in the South China Sea between China and its neighbours that has turned into a small localized shooting war before, and can again. And that's totally ignoring the Taiwan question.

How about the situation in Iran? Or Syria? How about the unpredictable North Koreans? To tell you the truth, we don't know where, when or whom the next war is going to be against. How many people in the 1980's though we would be in Yugoslavia bombing the Serbs? How many people thought in the 1970's we would be in Kuwait driving out the Iraqi's?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 10):
But how is the F-35 supposed to fight against passive IRST (Infrared Search and Track) systems, that can see an F-35 from over 50 miles out and against IR guided BVR missiles that have LOAL (Lock on after launch) capability?

Late model IRSTs are limited to ranges in the ~25-45nm range, against head on fighter size targets (afterburning), and ~50-70+nm against a rear aspect (afterburning). These ranges are affected by the climate and other conditions.

If you are in a non-stealthy aircraft against a F-35, I will see you first with my radar. I can then maneuver into a position where I have the advantage and can shoot at you, with you having little to no chance of survival.

And FYI, F-35 will also have the IRST system as well; unlike other fighters however, it won't just have it for the frontal aspect; it will have 360 coverage around the F-35.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
It can equate to two things: better acceleration and more range. I will have more ability to either enter a fight that I want to fight, or exit one when I had enough. I also could have more staying power in a prolonged fight, as I won't run out of gas so fast.

Not in the case of the F-35 in stealth mode. The bigger engine gulps more fuel which depletes the internal fuel faster, shortening loiter time and range. The internal fuel volume will never change. Other fighters simply carry more external fuel, but the F-35 can't do that and still remain stealthy.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
I shoot a missile at you first, and you are forced to go straight to the defensive, trying to
defeat my weapon and you won't be able to engage me while you are at it.

Part of the response is to shoot a missile at you. That's why mutual kills happen. And since the F-35 usually only carries two A2A missiles, they would only shoot 1 missile at an enemy at BVR, that's a problem right there, IMHO. The F-35 will run out of it's 2 missiles real fast.

"I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons," -Air Force Major Richard Koch

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
We got a nice little dispute brewing in the East China Sea between Japan and China where the US will get dragged into if there is a little shooting conflict

A war against China? Really? That's not going to happen.

Even if it does, the F-35s range is far to short and bomb load too small. Besides, from what bases are the F-35s going to fly from against China? Assuming the best case scenarios, the F-35 could never reach any interior Chinese areas, as the distances are waaay too far. China is a gigantic country.

Even aircraft carriers can not be used anymore against China, or they'll be sunk by the AIP subs that they already have operational and salvos of anti ship missiles. These subs are not detectable by any American ASW measures including US Nuclear attack subs. Even then, the US Navy would only have 260 F-35s - at best and probably less.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
How about the situation in Iran? Or Syria? How about the unpredictable North Koreans?

Do we need the F-35 for these types of enemies? I think not. The B-2 would be far better as well as existing fighters and cruise missiles. The B-2 does not operate with fighter escorts, it flies too far for them, and is more stealthy than even an F-22 is, and is way more stealthy than an F-35, not to speak of carrying 10x more bomb load in stealth. And the F-35 can not carry a bunker busting bomb, which other planes including the B-2 can.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
If you are in a non-stealthy aircraft against a F-35, I will see you first with my radar.

No, I will see your radar signal , searching for me, before your radar paints me. The headlight seen in the distance analogy. And the F-35 is not the only one with missile countermeasures, which us why not all missiles fired will hit. Which makes carrying only 2 missiles a big disadvantage, while the enemy fires 2 or 3 missiles at the F-35 almost at the same time and with different types of missiles - one usually radar or beam riding guided (your radar) and the other IR guided. Nasty.

Anyway, we neither need the F-35 for China nor any other enemy on the globe. Putting in a bigger thirstier engine, will only reduce the capabilities. It will make it kinetically a little better - but which LM say is irrelevant and still not in the league if the competition.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Not in the case of the F-35 in stealth mode. The bigger engine gulps more fuel which depletes the internal fuel faster, shortening loiter time and range. The internal fuel volume will never change. Other fighters simply carry more external fuel, but the F-35 can't do that and still remain stealthy.

Depends on how the engine is tuned.

And other fighters NEED external fuel tanks to remotely hit their combat radius. A F/A-18 or a F-15 on internal fuel isn't going very far. A F-35 on internal fuel will hit its combat radius very easily. Basically a F-35 with internal fuel will fly as far as a F-16 or a F/A-18 on external fuel.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Part of the response is to shoot a missile at you. That's why mutual kills happen. And since the F-35 usually only carries two A2A missiles, they would only shoot 1 missile at an enemy at BVR, that's a problem right there, IMHO. The F-35 will run out of it's 2 missiles real fast.

How can you? You are being forced to turn away from me to try to defeat my missile. You don't have 360 degree coverage of your sensors. Unless you want to shoot blind, and that's a wasted shot.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
The F-35 will run out of it's 2 missiles real fast.

Gee, a F-16 usually goes into combat with only 2 missiles in a ground attack mission... and it does ok. And F-35 can carry 4 AIM-120's in a stealthy air to air configuration. If we ever purchase CUDA, a F-35 can carry 12 BVR missiles internally. Plenty of missiles to go around.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Even if it does, the F-35s range is far to short and bomb load too small.

Really? A F-16 loaded up with 2 AIM-120's and 2 JDAM's will go just as far as an F-35 as long as the F-16 is carrying 3 drop tanks. Ditto F/A-18. And if stealth is no longer required in a conflict, I have up to 15,000 lb of payload for ordinance, at almost the same range.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Besides, from what bases are the F-35s going to fly from against China? Assuming the best case scenarios, the F-35 could never reach any interior Chinese areas, as the distances are waaay too far. China is a gigantic country.

We don't need to strike deep into China. Where will the Chinese conduct their war from? The coastal areas! A J-10 stationed in Xinjing isn't much of use to the Chinese in a war. The same J-10 stated in Qingdao or Hangzhou is more of use to the Chinese in a war.

So what do we do? We bomb their coastal military installations. They can't conduct war as well as they will be forced to fight from the interior or operate from heavily damaged bases, which reduces their combat effectiveness. And as most of the Chinese economy is located on the coast, we can inflict some serious hurt against the Chinese regardless.

And the Chinese know this; where do you think their more modern military formations are? In the coastal areas!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Even aircraft carriers can not be used anymore against China, or they'll be sunk by the AIP subs that they already have operational and salvos of anti ship missiles. These subs are not detectable by any American ASW measures including US Nuclear attack subs. Even then, the US Navy would only have 260 F-35s - at best and probably less.

Better tell the USN that, because they are very confident in their ASW skills, and their ability to detect AIP subs.

Not going to go there on everything else, but claims of the end of the aircraft carrier and the superiority of the submarine is vastly overstated and unrealistic. The USN has worked extensively over the past few years on improving their ASW skills, and have improved both their sensors, weapons, and tactics.

And they need to FIND the carrier groups in the first place; the USN is an expert at hiding large task forces, a skill they learned and practiced against the Soviet Naval Aviation regiments, and the Soviets had more aircraft, more ships, more satellites than the Chinese ever had. If the Soviets can totally miss a task force operating a few hundred miles off of one of their bases, our carriers will do fine against the Chinese.

A sub vectored out to find a carrier has to have some idea of where to look. If the carrier has freedom to operate it can avoid contact by "random and dynamic" movement. Only if the carrier locks itself to a set operational area and pattern (as in most structured exercises which lends itself to the prevailing myth of submarine superiority) does it become predictable and hence, vulnerable. If the carrier moves it forces the sub to move to catch it, thereby making the sub more detectable.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
And the F-35 can not carry a bunker busting bomb, which other planes including the B-2 can.

Gee, we have the upcoming High Velocity Penetrating Weapon coming up that is a bunker buster and can be carried in a F-35... and SDB can penetrate 3ft of reinforced concrete as well.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
No, I will see your radar signal , searching for me, before your radar paints me.

I have a LPI radar; your ability to detect me is significantly reduced. No one else has a LPI radar, except for some of our European allies, and the nations where we have sold our hardware to.

And your aircraft is not very stealthy; I will pick you up much further away (100+ miles out) before you might be able to pick me up with any of you sensors. By the time you will be in a position to even aim a weapon at me, I got a AIM-120 inbound on you and almost down your throat.

And why do you think the F-22 is so dominant in BVR combat? Hint: better radar and stealth capabilities. The F-35 has very similar capabilities in that regards.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Which makes carrying only 2 missiles a big disadvantage, while the enemy fires 2 or 3 missiles at the F-35 almost at the same time and with different types of missiles - one usually radar or beam riding guided (your radar) and the other IR guided. Nasty.

FYI, the AN/APG-81 radar has electronic warfare capabilities; it has modes programmed into it where it can attack hostile radar sets and even radar-guided weapons and jam them. No other radar available has that capabilities.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Putting in a bigger thirstier engine, will only reduce the capabilities.

And this is where it shows that you aren't reading the articles or even bother understanding the articles. The F135 PIP is expected to INCREASE thrust by 5% and IMPROVE fuel efficiency. AETD is expected to add 10% MORE thrust, and REDUCE fuel consumption by 25%. Pay attention.


User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5370 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 12):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
It can equate to two things: better acceleration and more range. I will have more ability to either enter a fight that I want to fight, or exit one when I had enough. I also could have more staying power in a prolonged fight, as I won't run out of gas so fast.

Not in the case of the F-35 in stealth mode. The bigger engine gulps more fuel which depletes the internal fuel faster, shortening loiter time and range. The internal fuel volume will never change. Other fighters simply carry more external fuel, but the F-35 can't do that and still remain stealthy.

Tommy...the range listed is without external fuel tanks, so YES it would equate to better range.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
Better tell the USN that, because they are very confident in their ASW skills, and their ability to detect AIP subs.

Can you please provide a link to some source. I have read more and more reports to the contrary. The Swedish AIP sib was leased for 2 years by the US Navy out in San Diego to try to figure this out. No they're doing an excersize with a German AIP sub in the Caribbean. Reading from the German point of view, they very confident they can not be discovered and that the days of large surface vessels is over. I would appreciate a link to what you claim on US ASW capabilities regarding small AIP subs.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
I got a AIM-120 inbound on you and almost down your throat.

Even the AIM-120s are jammable. They have - at best - a 50% chance of hitting a modern plane with jammers. The fact that the F-35 has poor kinematic performance effects the range of the AIM-120. The range is influenced at what altitude and with how much energy it is launched (how fast you're going).

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
AETD is expected to add 10% MORE thrust, and REDUCE fuel consumption by 25%. Pay attention.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ptive-fan-in-about-a-month-382726/
Reread the article about the AETD engine linked by SCAT15F in post #2. Nowhere does it say what you are claiming. I really don't know where you get your info from.

And reduce SFC consumption at equivalent power settings, sure. That's what a lower SFC means. But not when you demand 25% more power - if that's even ever going to happne. And you omit the probable weight gain of the AETD and the higher inlet and exhaust temperatures.

I think the F-35 is making the same mistake that was made with the F-4 in the beginning. Only that the F-4 had other advantages, that the F-35 will never have over other fighters. The difference is that the F-4 could withdraw and attack again at will due to it's speed and power advantage. The F-35's kinematic inferiority is totally different than the kinematic advantage that the F-4 enjoyed in it's day (and the F-22 has today).

Again, what base is the F-35 to fly from, that is within range of the F-35, if flying against China? There are no bases and even if they were, they would be quickly over run by a few million Chinese.


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5260 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
Reread the article about the AETD engine linked by SCAT15F in post #2. Nowhere does it say what you are claiming. I really don't know where you get your info from.

From Aviation Week:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....d_09_18_2012_p01-02-496815.xml&p=2

The 48-month AETD has four goals. The first is to design a new combat-aircraft engine with 25% lower thrust-specific fuel consumption, but 5% more military power and 10% higher maximum thrust than the Pratt F135 now powering the F-35.“We will take that engine through preliminary design review,” Reed says. The engine must be sized to fit in the F-35 with “only modest modifications,” he says.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Fair enough, thanks for this additional article. However, please note the planned time frame mentioned in that article:

The Navy is looking at a notional in-service date of 2028 and the Air Force at 2032

And as we know, these can slip by years. By then, almost all F-35 will have been delivered already. The money will probably not be available to re-engine the F-35 later on. This is so far out, it's vapor ware.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5138 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
Can you please provide a link to some source. I have read more and more reports to the contrary. The Swedish AIP sib was leased for 2 years by the US Navy out in San Diego to try to figure this out. No they're doing an excersize with a German AIP sub in the Caribbean. Reading from the German point of view, they very confident they can not be discovered and that the days of large surface vessels is over. I would appreciate a link to what you claim on US ASW capabilities regarding small AIP subs.

Why do you think we hire these German and Swedish submarines? To train, practice and hone our skills in ASW! The USN has also practiced against RCN and RAN submarines as well to help hone their ASW skills.

New equipment is coming down the pipeline to add more tools and improved tools to fight submarines. The new Virgina class attack submarines have been designed with a new sonar that gives it better ability to detect conventional submarines, including AIP subs.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
Even the AIM-120s are jammable. They have - at best - a 50% chance of hitting a modern plane with jammers. The fact that the F-35 has poor kinematic performance effects the range of the AIM-120. The range is influenced at what altitude and with how much energy it is launched (how fast you're going).

AIM-120 has a two way datalink and F-35 is capable of providing final guidance to a AIM-120, especially if it is spoofed or jammed through its various sensors.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
Again, what base is the F-35 to fly from, that is within range of the F-35, if flying against China? There are no bases and even if they were, they would be quickly over run by a few million Chinese.

Gee...
Misawa Air Base
Yokota Air Base
Kadena Air Base
Naval Air Facility Atsugi
Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni
Marine Corps Air Station Futenma
Ie Jima Auxiliary Airfield
Komatsu Base
Gifu Air Field
Miho Air Base
Nyutabaru Air Base
Tsuiki Air Base
Omura Air Base
Osan Air Base
Kunsan Air Base
Andersen Air Force Base

Some of these are available with just one tanker refueling over friendly territory. And this is a partial listing!

Also note that the Chinese completely lack the ability to land millions of troops on a shore; the only nation with enough amphib ability to come close is the US.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 17):
And as we know, these can slip by years. By then, almost all F-35 will have been delivered already. The money will probably not be available to re-engine the F-35 later on. This is so far out, it's vapor ware.

However, we will get 5% in thrust and possible additional fuel efficiency this year through a PIP. Future PIP's will improve the engine as well.

Also, do I need to compare the F-16's original Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan, rated at 12,240 lb.s.t. dry, 14,670 lb.s.t. full military, and 23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburning to the F-16's Block 52's Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 turbofan, rated at 17,000 lb.s.t. dry and 28,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning? Good, because we can see how the same engine type can gain thrust over the years through redesign.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5122 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
Can you please provide a link to some source.

Your personal opinion was already stated. Based on that, I asked you for a link regarding the US Navy's ability to detect AIP subs? This is a straightforward request.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 18):
Gee...
Misawa Air Base
Yokota Air Base
Kadena Air Base
Naval Air Facility Atsugi
Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni
Marine Corps Air Station Futenma
Ie Jima Auxiliary Airfield
Komatsu Base
Gifu Air Field
Miho Air Base
Nyutabaru Air Base
Tsuiki Air Base
Omura Air Base
Osan Air Base
Kunsan Air Base


Come one now, just to take some random samples:

Misawa = 436 NM just to the Chinese border and you need to overfly Russia and them on to a target
Kadena Air Base = 357 nm just to the Chinese border
Osan Air Base (Korea) = 216 nm just to the Chinese border
Gifu Air Field = 500+ nm just to the Chinese border
Naval Air Facility Atsugi = 584 nm just to the Chinese border

You also forget that we need permission from various nations. These bases need not be over run, just destroyed by rockets and missiles by the Chinese.

You never seem to take enemy capabilities into account when discussion the F-35 and assume perfection from the F-35. Don't you think that when overflying China, that the F-35 will be greeted by 10 fighters for every one F-35? Even if the F-35 scores a hit with every one of it's 2 Missiles, they're dead meat regardless and so are many of the tankers flying so close to China.

These flights will also be targeted by SAMS on the mainland and the Chinese Navy's missiles from Chinese ships. The USA just can't pull it off that way. Much more effective would be 1) low level B-1s and 2) high level B-2s and 3) a large number of cruise missiles fired from B-52s and Subs from a distance. Due to the threat of Chinese AIP subs and anti ship rockets and missiles, large surface ships like missile cruisers and carriers are too vulnerable close in to China. Besides a war with USA Vs. China will NEVER happen.

But please, show me a link to your statement that the US Navy has a handle on AIP subs. I would love to see that.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5086 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 19):
Your personal opinion was already stated. Based on that, I asked you for a link regarding the US Navy's ability to detect AIP subs? This is a straightforward request.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/cold-war-asw.html
http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/art4-sp05.pdf

And AIP is not a way to make conventional submarines invisible. It only extends their underwater submerged time. They don't have the mobility or the endurance of a nuclear submarine, but AIP helps reduce the need to snorkel to recharge the batteries, though it does not eliminate it, especially if the submarine is forced to operate at high speed.

The USN is making significant investment in ASW through the introduction of the MH-60R, Virginia class attack subs, the installation of the AN/SQR-20 MFTA and the AN/SQQ-89Av15 throughout the Burke DDG's and Tico CG's, and the LCS, which will introduce the ASW module.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 19):
Come one now, just to take some random samples:

Misawa = 436 NM just to the Chinese border and you need to overfly Russia and them on to a target
Kadena Air Base = 357 nm just to the Chinese border
Osan Air Base (Korea) = 216 nm just to the Chinese border
Gifu Air Field = 500+ nm just to the Chinese border
Naval Air Facility Atsugi = 584 nm just to the Chinese border

You also forget that we need permission from various nations. These bases need not be over run, just destroyed by rockets and missiles by the Chinese.

Don't forget we have tanker assets in Japan that can tank up our combat jet force in friendly space before they head out to China. And I think the Japanese will be more than willing to let us use their bases as any war in the region will involve the Japanese in one for or another due to the Mutual Defence Treaty between Japan and the US.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 19):
Don't you think that when overflying China, that the F-35 will be greeted by 10 fighters for every one F-35? Even if the F-35 scores a hit with every one of it's 2 Missiles, they're dead meat regardless and so are many of the tankers flying so close to China.

F-35's won't fly alone; they will fly with other F-35's and other combat jets. And the Chinese, while on paper have a large combat jet force, the majority of it is older generation combat jets, and the Chinese are making significant combat jet force reductions to afford their newer 4+th generation fighters. I would expect that their J-7 and derivative force will be retired without replacement in the next few years based upon the current observed rate of aircraft retirement by the Chinese. And of the Chinese combat jet force, only ~560 are relatively modern between the PLAAF and the PLANAF; the others are somewhat obsolete or are not true fighter jets, and may be of limited value in a fight.

So if you actually look CLOSELY at the numbers, it's not a 10 to 1 odds. More like 5 to 1 at best because the Chinese won't be able to get all of their jets in the same battle space to effectively employ swarm tactics before there are too many fighters in the same area to manage.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 19):
Besides a war with USA Vs. China will NEVER happen.

Never say never. In the 1980's, we never said that we would never be bombing the Serbs. And you are totally missing any potential flashpoints between the Chinese and some of her neighbours, some of which are major US allies.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

Do you even read your own sources?

One particularly alarming development is the marriage made possible by the end of the Cold War of the air independent, non-nuclear submarine with the submarine-launched antiship missile. Armed with Harpoons or Exocets available from several western suppliers, these platforms can launch fire and forget missiles from over the radar horizon without the need for the noisy and battery draining approach run necessary for a traditional, torpedo-armed, diesel-electric boat. This threat circumvents the traditional ASW approach to dealing with very quiet diesel-electrics, i.e. to flood the ocean surface with radar and use speed to force the submarine to either run down its battery and expose itself in an attack run or stay quiet and defensive.

And it's from 13 years ago, before all the incidents with AIP subs defeating Carrier screens happened. Since 2006, it's happened several times by French, German, Swedish and Chinese AIP subs. This is not a coincidence. Maybe your second link is better. Let's see.......errr, nope, you didn't read that one either.

"As an American submariner, Rear Admiral
Malcolm Fages, warns, “The marriage of air independent, nonnuclear submarines
with over-the-horizon, fire and forget antiship cruise missiles and high endurance,
wake homing torpedoes . . . [means that] traditional ASW approaches,
employing radar flooding and speed, are not likely to be successful against this
threat.

The Project 636 Kilo “is one of the quietest diesel
submarines in the world”; wake-homing torpedoes are countermeasure resistant,
“user-friendly” weapons effective at ten kilometers or more, even for
less proficient submarine forces; and the Klub-S missile has a 220-kilometer
maximum range against ships and a terminal speed of up to Mach 3. Such a capability
represents a very formidable threat to American and allied surface units.


And there is a ton of stuff there about this AIP sub threat I won't quote. However, there is nothing about actually defeating AIP subs - nothing. Thanks for confirming my point though.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
So if you actually look CLOSELY at the numbers, it's not a 10 to 1 odds. More like 5 to 1 at bes

That's bar is still too high for the F-35, since it carries two missiles and some maybe 4. Even if every single missile on destroys a target (If you believe in Santa), it's still not enough. They would be mowed down by any remaining fighters to the last bullet and the tankers too. It would be far more effective to use long range bombers and stand off weapons that do not need tanker support or the permission of any other country to operate, not to speak of the extremely short range and thus limited targets that the F-35 could hit, compared to the alternatives, or the fact their bases are in easy reach of Chinese weapons.

Using carriers is also not an option, as you can see FROM YOUR OWN SOURCES.

As far as the 5% or 10% fuel savings from the engine PIPS - I'll believe it when I see it. With a program 70% over budget and 7 years behind schedule - No prediction from these people can be believed. A $40 Million price tag for each F-35 engine is a joke - and this does not include development costs as that were funded separately.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Do you even read your own sources?

One particularly alarming development is the marriage made possible by the end of the Cold War of the air independent, non-nuclear submarine with the submarine-launched antiship missile. Armed with Harpoons or Exocets available from several western suppliers, these platforms can launch fire and forget missiles from over the radar horizon without the need for the noisy and battery draining approach run necessary for a traditional, torpedo-armed, diesel-electric boat. This threat circumvents the traditional ASW approach to dealing with very quiet diesel-electrics, i.e. to flood the ocean surface with radar and use speed to force the submarine to either run down its battery and expose itself in an attack run or stay quiet and defensive.

Yes I have. And submarine launched anti-shipping missiles aren't new; the Soviets had them, from the Echo II's, Charlie's, and Oscar's. We've dealt with them before, and this sort of threat isn't new.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
And it's from 13 years ago, before all the incidents with AIP subs defeating Carrier screens happened. Since 2006, it's happened several times by French, German, Swedish and Chinese AIP subs. This is not a coincidence. Maybe your second link is better. Let's see.......errr, nope, you didn't read that one either.

Come back to me once you have spoken to someone who serves in the Navy in ASW and understands the implications. The USN and allied navies fully understand the tactical implications of AIP, the strengths and weaknesses, and have developed strategies and tactics against them.

In a war situation the waterspace would be flooded with so much low frequency active (LFA) sonar that you could walk to Hawaii from the West Coast and back on dead whales and AIP submarines.

Submarines have evolved from commerce raiders and asymmetrical naval platforms into multi-mission joint platforms. Their roles include land attack (cruise missiles), intelligence gathering, insertion and exfiltration of special forces, etc, in addition to traditional ASW / ASuW roles. AIP simply extend the endurance and loiter time (and nuclear submarines are essentially an expression of AIP technology).

The moral is that you will never get the straight story on ASW anywhere, because it's real secret and nobody really knows what's going on anyway. Some know enough to maintain a good front of knowledge and elicit the occasional ooh or ah from the higher ups, though. AIP is a growing concern nonetheless - that said, it's always a race between the bubbleheads and the skimmers, like in WWII and the Cold War. It's a little biased in their favour these days but it will even out, as there are pretty neat passive and active detection capabilties in the pipeline (fiber optic arrays and so forth).

I know DRDC and AECL has worked in the past on AIP systems for conventional submarines, in particular, the SLOWPOKE reactor. The intent at the time was to develop an Air Independent Propulsion system. A system that would allow long stays under the ice. This meant a power supply that could operate for a sufficiently long period of time as to allow any vessel to transit the ice and not get trapped. It didn't necessarily mean being able to stay down indefinitely. This meant that such a AIP system needs to operate independently of drawing upon oxygen from the air, and from looking at the technology at the time (this was in the 1970's and 1980's, BTW) from Stirling engines to early versions of fuel cells, they settled on SLOWPOKE (Safe LOw POwer Kritical Experiment), which was essentially a miniaturized nuclear reactor (this is a gross simplification; the reality was it much more). It was a remarkable design apparently for lack of moving parts (read noise) and its inherent safety and stability. There was even talk at one time of it being considered for small scale commercial applications. It was licensed for "unattended" operation.

The operational concept to AIP subs for submarines with SLOWPOKE were the same; the reactor would driving things at low speed and charging the banks of batteries, then drawing from the huge battery supplies for bursts of high speed. SLOWPOKE (much like the Stirling engine and PEM fuel cells) was only good for around 6-7 knots sustained, hence the need for a battery to store power for burst speed.

I'm not going to go into the tactical and strategic implications of all of this because this belongs in a totally different forum. But I will make it clear that AIP technology is not new, and the USN, with allied navies, have worked hard on this front to counter them.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
That's bar is still too high for the F-35, since it carries two missiles and some maybe 4.

For all the talk about swarming stealth fighters with targets, there is a simple problem of getting them into the air in the first place and coordinating them. We have to deal with these questions:
1. What is our and the enemy's sortie generation rate? This affects how many aircraft are available at any given time.
2. How many assets can we and the enemy effectively control at a time? This affects how many aircraft we can put into the air before chaos ensues and everyone looses control of the battle before it even begins.
3. How many assets can a battle space accommodate? This will affect how many aircraft we can put in one area before adding additional aircraft becomes counter-productive.
4. How many assets can one support at any given time?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
It would be far more effective to use long range bombers

These long range bombers need supporting aircraft to ensure mission success, everything from AWACS, counter-air, SEAD, and ELINT. Guess what, you will need the smaller combat jets, like F-35 to provide some of these.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
Using carriers is also not an option, as you can see FROM YOUR OWN SOURCES.

The carriers will do fine; if we can stick carrier group in the 1980's off the coast near Petroplavask and operate mirror image strikes without the Soviets knowing we were there until we let them know we were there, the carriers will do fine.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 21):
permission of any other country to operate

We'll get it from the Japanese. If we are going to war with the Chinese, it will most likely be in support of the Japanese anyways, with them asking for military assistance.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4949 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
But I will make it clear that AIP technology is not new, and the USN, with allied navies, have worked hard on this front to counter them.

AIP is not new, that is correct. However, the new subs have implemented it in combination with new technology like magnetically neutral steel and sonar absorbing material and no heat signature, and are so small due to automation and electronics, that they are not detectable. Large nuclear subs can not have all of these properties for many reasons. Take the IR heat signature they leave behind for miles. The nuclear reactor is always on and always needs cooling, no matter what 24/7 - which means hot water is discharged, leaving an IR wake, which AIP boats do not have.

Running the nuclear reactor and the propulsion is also much louder than a modern electric engine and propulsion, which has no moving parts, except the prop.

Since large attack subs are louder, part of the problem is that the attack subs in the carrier fleet would be sunk first. You love Stealth right? Well AIP subs have that over the nuclear subs. Think F-22 against Gen 4 fighters. AIP subs can see as well as anyone and carry the same weapons, but they are much much harder to detect, if not impossible. Do the math.

I asked you for a source that says these subs are not a threat to carriers or that the US Navy can deal with them, and yor sources say nothing of the sort. Your own sources actually say they are a threat. It is very likely that the days of large surface vessels is over. That's the reality.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
Guess what, you will need the smaller combat jets, like F-35 to provide some of these.

The B-2s don't fly with escorts or AWACS. Even if they wanted to, the F-35s nor any other fighter has the required range. None could keep up with a B-1 or B-2. Besides, F-35s don't carry Mach 4 SEAD anti radiation missiles, like the F-16 does. Instead it hopes to throw a few glide bomb SDBs at SAM batteries. Really?

Modern SAM batteries now have excellent defensive capabilities. Like anti missile defense capabilities. SDBs are slow moving and move in a straight line since they glide subsonic - the easiest weapon to defend against for a SAM battery. I can hear them yawn as they see them coming. SDBs is no way to combat modern SAM batteries.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 22):
The carriers will do fine; if we can stick carrier group in the 1980's off the coast near Petroplavask

What was possible in 1880 or 1980 against Russia is one thing. What is possible today against China is another, much less in 2020. You quote stuff from yesteryear. I suggest you get up to speed.

As far a Pratt's engine and LM are concerned, I will believe the final performance specs, when the services measure it for themselves. If you listen to the contractors, everything is always ahead of plan and just fine or just as expected. Then why are we 7 years behind schedule and performing well below initial requirements on many metrics?

[Edited 2013-03-01 12:20:05]

[Edited 2013-03-01 12:28:31]

[Edited 2013-03-01 12:29:40]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
However, the new subs have implemented it in combination with new technology like magnetically neutral steel and sonar absorbing material and no heat signature, and are so small due to automation and electronics, that they are not detectable.

Conventional submarines already had the magnetically neutral steel and sonar absorbing materials, and have very minimal heat signatures (you can't eliminate heat signature). Such subs include the Australian Collins' and the Canadian Victoria's, both of which have excellent endurance underwater without AIP.

AIP technology only extends the duration conventional submarines can stay underwater; it's like a solar panel on top of a electric car. It can extend the amount of time the electric car can drive around, but it doesn't mean it has infinite range at top speed.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
Since large attack subs are louder, part of the problem is that the attack subs in the carrier fleet would be sunk first.

Nuclear submarines and our carrier groups have speed in the open ocean. Any conventional submarine traveling at 20+ knots trying to keep up with a carrier group is going to be fairly noisy, and they will run out of battery power as well, forcing them to run on their diesels to recharge.

And that's beyond the fact that you need to FIND a task force anyways to vector a submarine in...

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
I asked you for a source that says these subs are not a threat to carriers or that the US Navy can deal with them, and yor sources say nothing of the sort. Your own sources actually say they are a threat. It is very likely that the days of large surface vessels is over. That's the reality.

If you have been paying attention to USN procurement, they disagree. They have improved their sub-surface detection capabilities significantly. The Burke's are going to be very capable sub hunters in the near future with the upgrades. LCS will also be a competent sub hunter with the ASW module, as will the Virginia's and Seawolf attack subs. We have the MH-60R's in the fleet as well. We have more ASW assets as a percentage of the fleet than in the Cold War.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
The B-2s don't fly with escorts or AWACS.

They need distant cover for infiltration and exfiltration. That means you have to make sure that enemy fighters aren't operating in the area by either shooting them all down, or drawing them away, enemy early warning and SAM sites aren't looking in the area, etc. You will need a regular fighter jet to do all of that.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
F-35s don't carry Mach 4 SEAD anti radiation missiles, like the F-16 does. Instead it hopes to throw a few glide bomb SDBs at SAM batteries. Really?

The current HARM missiles are being replaced by AARGM... which is capable of being carried on F-35. And SDB is not a weapon to sneeze at... and on top of that, we have JDAM's, Paveway's, JSOW, and CBU's as well.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):

Modern SAM batteries now have excellent defensive capabilities. Like anti missile defense capabilities. SDBs are slow moving and move in a straight line since they glide subsonic - the easiest weapon to defend against for a SAM battery. I can hear them yawn as they see them coming. SDBs is no way to combat modern SAM batteries.

Really? Do realize how big a SDB is; it's smaller than the HARM missile; significantly smaller. And no one has demonstrated the ability to shoot down a bomb yet.

And bombs are a perfectly valid SEAD weapon. AGM's such as HARM are just one tool available for SEAD. Any air to ground weapon can be used for SEAD; even the aircraft's gun is a valid SEAD weapon.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 23):
What was possible in 1880 or 1980 against Russia is one thing. What is possible today against China is another, much less in 2020. You quote stuff from yesteryear. I suggest you get up to speed.

The Soviets had MORE aircraft, more satellites, more ships and more platforms available for reconnaissance and search. They still had significant trouble hunting down our carrier groups. What makes you think the Chinese are any better when they have LESS ships, less aircraft, less satellites, and less platforms to do the initial search and track?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
If you have been paying attention to USN procurement, they disagree. They have improved their sub-surface detection capabilities significantly. The Burke's are going to be very capable

I am not asking for your opinion, you're already clear on that. I am asking you for a link - one that supports you opinion, not mine. If the Us Navy disagrees with my point - where's the link where they actually say so? I will just assume you can't find one. Though thanks for finding 2 links that support my view on that.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Any conventional submarine traveling at 20+ knots trying to keep up with a carrier group is going to be fairly noisy, and they will run out of battery power as well, forcing them to run on their diesels to recharge.

AIP subs don't work that way and don't have that limitation.

I will link another here:
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/08/27/the-...ti-submarine-warfare-capabilities/

Conventional submarines, particularly those equipped with AIP systems, can operate with a greater degree of stealth and freedom in the waters near China than larger U.S. nuclear submarines. Advanced weapons systems deployed on submarines along with land based missile and air forces would serve to deny the waters near the Chinese coast to U.S. and other combat forces.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
They need distant cover for infiltration and exfiltration. That means you have to make sure that enemy fighters aren't operating in the area by either shooting them all down, or drawing them away, enemy early warning and SAM sites aren't looking in the area, etc. You will need a regular fighter jet to do all of that.

Nope, nein, non. The B-2 relies on stealth and it's own sensors and operates without escorts. Your making this stuff up to find the F-35 a mission. The F-35, would make the mission instantly less stealthy since the B-2 is the stealthiest plane in existence.Much stealthier that the F-35 and it doesn't have the range in any case, nor does the B-2 operate that way.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
And no one has demonstrated the ability to shoot down a bomb yet.

Um, yes, Russian self defending SAMS would have no trouble doing so:

Active defence of high value IADS components such as radars by the deployment of optimised point defence SAMs and SPAAGs, such as the Tor M2/M2E / SA-15, Pantsir S1E / SA-22 or LD-2000, intended to kill inbound PGMs such as the AGM-88 anti-radiation missile family, and the Paveway, JDAM, JSOW and SDB families of weapons.

Google these weapons
Tor M2/M2E / SA-15, Pantsir S1E / SA-22 or LD-2000

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The Soviets had

Yesteryear. I recommend looking forward and what is available today and in the immediate future, rather than comparing the 1980's Russians to anything. That Universe does not exist anymore.

Bottom line is in a shooting war with China, the F-35 would not be used. Not land based and not carrier based based.

As to the engine, the $40 million F-35 Pratt engine is too expensive, like just about every screw on the F-35. Instead of trying to make it 5% better, the should concentrate on making it 75% cheaper or to around $10 Million a piece like it was supposed to be.

[Edited 2013-03-01 17:27:46]

User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3506 posts, RR: 27
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How F**ing many time do we have to tell you two to either stay on subject or see the thread shut down.. Both have lost creditability.. and we've heard your rants repeated over and over.. why not just meet in a peaceful town like Detroit and duke it out..but please stop the off topic tirades

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 10 hours ago) and read 4809 times:

Indeed it's hard to see how we got from a thread about F35 engines to posts about metallic submarines in 25 posts, sigh.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 8 hours ago) and read 4780 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
Mainly because we're paying (much more than LM said we would) NOW.

Yeah, throwing in all the development costs on top of the unit cost will make the jet look ridiculously expensive. If you remove the development costs (which you dont get back whether you buy any jets or none), the F-35A LRIP 5 jets are coming in at $58m each (engine and full systems included). Even using the $200B price tag (based on LRIP 4 numbers) being used to purchase the 3100 jets... that still works out to $64m each fly away, which is still cheaper than the $66m fly away cost of the F/A-18E. A country buying only F-35As will will see even more savings. Take Canada for instance... $58m x 65 CF-35s is $3.77B... even at the doomsday price of $168m each, that is only $10.9B... still not the $45.8B tag being waved around. These high numbers are political bull being manipulated simply to make other political parties look bad.


If you spread that development cost out over 3100 F-35s expected to be purchased... that works out to $12.9m tacked on to each jets fly away price. So, F-35A would be about $70.9m... still not the $200m+ tag people are trying to wave around, and there is still decades of savings to be found on the coming 3000+ F-35s yet to be built. Yeah, $40b divided across 65 built F-35s... OMG TEH F-35 COSTS $673M EACH!!!!! Dont forget to buy the fuel ahead of time based on magical projected future fuel prices and consumption rates. You know, those 36 year oil futures... pretty darn predictable! Be sure to roll in any infrastructure upgrades in the next 36 years, maintenance costs, pilot training... you know, all the costs typically considered to be part of running the most powerful airforce in the world. That is the cost of the F-35!


User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 4 hours ago) and read 4738 times:

They really need to drop the F-35B, and use those resources to bring down costs and improve the capabilities of the A and C, especially with sequester coming. I'm getting sick of this preferential treatment of Marine air power, especially considering how few aircraft they will be getting relative to everyone else and how much more complicated it makes life for the program in general. THAT is the big waste here.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pratt To Test Upgraded F135 This Year
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F-35 Performance According To Test Pilots posted Tue May 17 2011 21:06:40 by ThePointblank
4 New Tu-160s This Year posted Tue Apr 22 2008 13:51:59 by Moo
This Year 60th Anniversary Of The Berlin Airlift posted Tue Apr 22 2008 05:06:47 by Columba
Airborne Laser To Test-fire In Flight posted Mon Jan 29 2007 22:44:44 by JakeOrion
Anyone Going To Travis Ksuu Airshow This Weekend? posted Thu Oct 13 2005 07:13:42 by Pilottj
Oceana Airshow May Get Better This Year.. posted Fri Aug 5 2005 02:00:22 by DeltaGuy
Belgian F-16 Loss This Year? posted Thu May 20 2004 18:10:04 by Spacepope
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
Who Does This AC Belong To? posted Sat Feb 21 2009 14:33:11 by Kiqaboy
Re-engined E-8 To Begin Flight Test 17 Dec. 08 posted Sat Dec 6 2008 00:23:59 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format