ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:52 pm

As I predicted, it appears South Korea is in the final stages of picking between the F-35 and the F-15SE. DSCA notice has just been posted and is below. It appears South Korea is after 60 of either.

DSCA notice for F-35 is below:
http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf

Quote:
Korea – F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea for 60 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $10.8 billion.

The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale of F-35s will provide the Republic of Korea (ROK) with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability. The ROK’s Air Force F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-35’s are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this aircraft system and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, Texas; and Pratt & Whitney Military Engines in East Hartford, Connecticut. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Korea to conduct Contractor Engineering Technical Services (CETS) and Autonomic Logistics and Global Support (ALGS) for after-aircraft delivery.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

The F-15SE's notice is below:
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-11.pdf

Quote:
Korea – F-15 Silent Eagle Aircraft Support
WASHINGTON, April 3, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress March 29 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.408 billion.

The Republic of Korea has requested a possible hybrid case in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by meeting the legitimate security and defense needs of an ally and partner nation. The Republic of Korea continues to be an important force for peace, political stability, and economic progress in North East Asia.

The proposed sale will augment Korea’s operational aircraft inventory and enhance its air-to-air and air-to-ground self-defense capability, provide it with a credible defense capability to deter aggression in the region, and ensure interoperability with U.S. forces. The Republic of Korea Air Force’s F-4 aircraft will be decommissioned as F-15SEs are added to the inventory. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing this additional equipment and support into its inventory.

The proposed sale of equipment and support will not negatively alter the basic military balance in the region.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews and support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years.

The prime contractor will be The Boeing Corporation in St Louis, Missouri. This proposal is being offered in the context of a competition. If the proposal is accepted, it is expected that offset agreements will be required.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness resulting from this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

Note that the F-15SE's notice is just for some of the equipment on the F-15SE, not the entire aircraft, as it is a hybrid of a direct commercial sale and government-to-government US foreign military sale. As such the DSCA notification to Congress is only for certain equipment that would have to be sold to South Korea to support the Silent Eagle sale.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:58 am

F-35

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

F-15SE

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

Just sayin.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:18 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 1):
F-35

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

F-15SE

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

Just sayin.

Did you not read the DSCA notice properly? One is for a complete aircraft with all supporting infrastructure (F-35). The other is for avionics and sensors for a separate commercial purchase of the airframe (F-15SE). So we know in the configuration that the Koreans are buying, 60 complete F-35's with support, spares and tools is $10.8 billion dollars. 60 complete sets of F-15SE avionics and sensors is $2.408 billion.

Yeah, really comparable; it's like comparing a car to a pineapple.  
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:59 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
.....a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Korea in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $2.408 billion.
Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.


It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?
 
Ozair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:33 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?

You honestly think Boeing has offered to sell South Korea 60 F-15SEs including all the accessory equipment such as AESA radars, targeting pods, spares, training etc listed for 2.41 billion???????

Why would South Korea even bother to submit a second case for the F-35 if it was more than 4 times as expensive? I doubt South Korea could transfer the money fast enough and would probably fly the entire acquisition executive team to Boeing to celebrate!
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:04 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 3):
It's pretty clear what is included in the price. It's the planes along with everything else. Why are you in total denial of the facts in front of you?

Yeah, read the DSCA notice more carefully:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The Government of the Republic of Korea has requested a possible sale of (60) F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) aircraft. Aircraft will be configured with the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines, and (9) Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines are included as spares. Other aircraft equipment includes: Electronic Warfare Systems; Command, Control, Communication, Computer and Intelligence/Communication, Navigational and Identification (C4I/CNI); Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; Weapons Employment Capability, and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; reprogramming center; F-35 Performance Based Logistics. Also included: software development/integration, aircraft ferry and tanker support, support equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $10.8 billion.

Here, they are talking about complete aircraft (airframe, avionics, engines) and support.

Now, F-15SE:

Quoting ThePointblank (Thread starter):
The Republic of Korea has requested a possible hybrid case in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). The proposed sale will include 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS), 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Targeting Systems, 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems, 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radio with HAVE QUICK II, 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares, the Advanced Display Core Processor II, Joint Mission Planning System, various support equipment items, GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contract engineering and logistical personnel services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $2.408 billion.

1. The DSCA notice says that the F-15SE will be bought using Direct Commercial Sales. Direct Commercial Sales does not require a DSCA notice! The sensors and avionics, however, do need the DSCA notice in this instance. Notice the very important phrase in what you quoted 'in support of (60) F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft being procured via Direct Commercial Sales'. This means that the notice does not include the airframes.
2. They are buying radars, targeting pods, IRST's, EW systems, radio's, avionics, and data links, plus support for that. End notice.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:10 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
This means that the notice does not include the airframes.

You are probably right.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:52 am

I'll put my money on the F-35. As much as I'd like to see South Korea go for the F-15SE, the F-35 suits them well against North Korea in both AA and AG roles. With the F-35, South Korea would have a potent first strike capability to the point where it would decrease their dependence on allied forces for protection.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2176
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:13 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 6):
You are probably right.

Other sources confirmed that he is. They also speculate that the total price of the SE will probably be lower than the F-35. How much lower? Boeing is not saying. Guessing that because it is a DCS, negotiation may still be in progress. Also the F-35 price is not yet fixed either.

Still, there are some differences that make the comparison not "apples to apples". As Korea already operates F-15's, there are some tooling, testing and infrastructure already exisited an would not be needed in the new order.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:01 pm

The other issue it timing. With the F-35 not being fully combat capable nor fully developed till 2019 at the earliest, would that have an influence? I bet the F-15SE is available sooner than that, but it's just a guess.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5264
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:24 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 8):
They also speculate that the total price of the SE will probably be lower than the F-35. How much lower? Boeing is not saying.

At their launch claim of $100M per frame, 60 Silent Eagles would cost an even $6.0B. DCS could probably lower that some more...or SK could negotiate with Boeing to develop and implement say, the canted tails and other stealth enhancing features for the original amount. For sixty airframes and being a loyal customer, the RoKAF have enough leverage to drive a hard bargain...what with the F-35 there to ensure keen pricing. Then just add the $2.4B for a nice $8.4B total...though $40M each plane for those things still seems a bit steep.

More than price, this tender will likely be decided on South Korea's desire to also have something to keep the J-20 and T-50 at bay later on.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © goneless
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Voukadinov - BGspotters


Whether the SE will be up to the task is the big question.....

.
http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/...12/12/tumblr_m7tpblACnJ1qhagdx.jpg.


Of course, the jury is still out on that too wrt the Lightning II.....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Zg/TAces_OZORI/AAAAAAAADkE/M5cwyMEqgME/s1600/f-35-taxiing-12.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ja676MG45Z...wyMEqgME/s1600/f-35-taxiing-12.jpg


Then, there's the political angle  spin .

[Edited 2013-04-04 13:49:30]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:47 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 10):
At their launch claim of $100M per frame, 60 Silent Eagles would cost an even $6.0B. DCS could probably lower that some more...or SK could negotiate with Boeing to develop and implement say, the canted tails and other stealth enhancing features for the original amount. For sixty airframes and being a loyal customer, the RoKAF have enough leverage to drive a hard bargain...what with the F-35 there to ensure keen pricing. Then just add the $2.4B for a nice $8.4B total...though $40M each plane for those things still seems a bit steep.

More than price, this tender will likely be decided on South Korea's desire to also have something to keep the J-20 and T-50 at bay later on.....

I would also argue that the South Koreans will need to think of their future fleet as well; right now they intend on replacing their fleet of F-4 Phantoms. South Korea has a large number of F-16's that will eventually need replacement in the future, so they will need to think of the future in their fleet planning.
 
art
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:26 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
I would also argue that the South Koreans will need to think of their future fleet as well; right now they intend on replacing their fleet of F-4 Phantoms. South Korea has a large number of F-16's that will eventually need replacement in the future, so they will need to think of the future in their fleet planning.

Does SK want to run the risk of F-35 being fully developed as per schedule? SK is in conflict with a country that has only recently had a change of leader, one whose actions cannot easily be predicted. Why not select whatever can enter service the sooner (SE) and replace the F-16's with F-35 further down the line?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:04 pm

Quoting art (Reply 12):
Does SK want to run the risk of F-35 being fully developed as per schedule? SK is in conflict with a country that has only recently had a change of leader, one whose actions cannot easily be predicted. Why not select whatever can enter service the sooner (SE) and replace the F-16's with F-35 further down the line?

clear logic has no place in military procurement especially when threatened.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:31 am

At the rate the North Koreans are escalating their rhetoric, they may cease to exist before any new order. They may suddenly get a shed load of cruise missiles fired at them simultaneously at all their military targets and put out of their misery.

How to do this while ensuring South Korea doesn't get a retaliatory strike is anyone's guess. Maybe just targeting the missiles and declaring this was the USA defending itself against North Korea and taking out a declared threat, then the North would have no justification to attack the South.

But if the North started shelling Seoul anyway, that would mean the end of the Northern regime. Maybe not the country, but the leaders for sure. Perhaps the North could remain as a stand alone country, to appease China, but with different leadership. Almost anything would be better. Even Fidel or Raul Castro. At least they're not dying of hunger in Cuba.

Wonder how many of North Korea's 600 planes are functional or if they even have fuel for them.

In light of the J-20, the F-15SE would be better in the high and fast arena, where the J-20 will be operating at. Wonder if the F-15SE can super cruise or not.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 3:53 am

Well it appears the F-15SE probably can't super cruise. So not any better than the F-35 against planes like the J-20 or T-50, imho. Or even worse. But the F-15SE would work great as an attack plane.

Only the Rafale and the Typhoon can super cruise. How much that might help I don't know. In any case, I doubt Korea would go for anything European for political reasons and because Korea has a bunch of US missiles, bombs, pods, etc..that may not work on them.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:05 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 13):
clear logic has no place in military procurement especially when threatened.

You mean spend double the $$ by first acquiring the F-16 then the F-35? No wonder the US is in such a horrid financial state.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:21 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):

Only the Rafale and the Typhoon can super cruise.

A bit of nitpicking; there are multiple definitions of super cruise. The one that is accepted by Lockheed Martin (and by extension, the US military) is traveling in excess of Mach 1.5 without afterburner. Only one aircraft meets that definition: F-22. The reason being is because they only consider what the F-22 is capable of as "true" super cruise, because THAT is what the term was coined for.

If we accept the generally accepted definition (which is the one you are thinking of) of just in excess of the speed of sound, more aircraft are deemed super cruise capable. The Typhoon has demonstrated this level of performance, the Rafale, not so. F-35 also has this definition of super cruise as well (it has demonstrated the capability of cruising at Mach 1.2 for a distance of 150 miles).

When Lockheed Martin say the F-35 isn't a supercruiser, they mean that it won't do M1.5+ on dry thrust. Not that it cannot exceed M1.0 on dry thrust.

So on the basis of Lockheed Martin's definition, F-35 and the Typhoon isn't a supercruising aircraft. But on the definition that we all use, then it is a supercruising aircraft.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:02 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
-35 also has this definition of super cruise as well (it has demonstrated the capability of cruising at Mach 1.2 for a distance of 150 miles).

I don't think the F-35 can accelerate past the transonic zone without afterburner. And for those who think power is the determining factor - it isn't. Otherwise the Concorde would not have been able to super cruise at Mach 2.2 with it's low power to weight ratio. At those speeds, it's mostly about aero.

The American birds, except the F-22, are all showing their ages. They are all basically subsonic fighters, that includes the F-35. This is outdated. Why does it take so long to learn the lessons of the SR-71 and F-22? The Russians and Chinese have caught on.

I think the Chinese have torn a page out of the Euro fighters, which are much faster than even the F-15, because of their Delta/canard configuration. The F-15 is a great hauler for attack, but I think it's fighting days are over. But that's all Korea needs - an attack threat. The F-15 has that like nobody else.

The main wing of the J-20 looks a bit like the TU-144/Concorde to me. IMHO, that makes clear, the J-20 will run high and very fast, even with sub par engines. To compare, nobody would say that the Concorde or TU-144 had modern or powerful engines by today's standards, but they super cruised beyond Mach 2 for hours.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:13 am

When was the last time a modern fighter needed to go past Mach1 in a battle situation? Yeah...exactly. Future aerial engagements will be won because of your avionics, not your speed. When the F35 enters service it will be the most advanced fighter in existence. The Chinese and Russians know they can't match the F35's level so they have to resort to speed - they'll need it to run away.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:39 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):

I don't think the F-35 can accelerate past the transonic zone without afterburner.

Not saying that it doesn't need afterburner to supersonic, but once supersonic, it can sustain it on dry thrust.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
At those speeds, it's mostly about aero.

And a nice, clean F-35 from the frontal aspect even when combat loaded compared to a similarly equipped F-16 or F/A-18 does the trick just fine.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
They are all basically subsonic fighters, that includes the F-35.

Every fighter is primarily a subsonic fighter. That's where the bulk of the actual combat takes place.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
This is outdated.

Not exactly; at higher speeds, it is more difficult to maneuver; you will either bleed more energy or you will have a very large turning radius.

If you look at every fight between fighters, in the hundreds of fights, only a handful ever exceeded the speed of sound. We've had fighters capable of going supersonic for half a century now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 18):
But that's all Korea needs - an attack threat.

Not exactly. They need to look to the future; who's the other major hegemon in the region. The Chinese will be a major concern to South Korea; there are a number of simmering territorial disputes with China over various islands, and there are some historical grievances between the two sides.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:03 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
ThePointblank

In the Fighter world, the saying is "speed is life". While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it. Today's modern fighter aircraft are still optimized for BVR fighting, which is missiles. Yes, they also have a gun for close in dog fighting, but that is not what they were optimized for, except for the highly maneuverable F-16, Rafael, and Typhoon.

The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless. Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.

Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict..

The F-35 is a (sustained) 4.6G airplane (9G instantaneous, or maximum), the F-16 is a 9G airplane (not including the F-16E/F, which are 7.5G).

The F-35A has a combat range of less than 600nm, compared to more than 800nm for the F-15SE. The F-15SE also carries more than twice the bomb load the F-35A does. The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.

So, do you buy more capability in a fighter/bomber aircraft, at 85% of the costs of a less capable fighter/bomber aircraft? if you are buying the same number of aircraft, in this case 60?
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:51 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
And a nice, clean F-35 from the frontal aspect even when combat loaded compared to a similarly equipped F-16 or F/A-18 does the trick just fine

Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant. Those planes will never be a threat to F-35 operators. You need to compare the F-35 against aircraft that may actually be a threat, like the J-10B, J-20, Flankers and T-50. All are very fast aircraft. The Flankers are probably the slowest of the bunch. The J-20 probably the fastest. The Chinese seemingly to me, learned from the J-10B, which is reportedly a very fast aircraft, capable of super cruise - with one engine. The inlets are similar for instance, as is the canard/delta configuration. With the J-20 having even more sweep, a la Concorde/TU-144.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
Not exactly; at higher speeds, it is more difficult to maneuver; you will either bleed more energy or you will have a very large turning radius.

If you look at every fight between fighters, in the hundreds of fights, only a handful ever exceeded the speed of sound. We've had fighters capable of going supersonic for half a century now.

I am sure there were people in WWI and WWII that had a similar opinion about the needs for more speed.

With this attitude, you are looking into the rear view mirror and ignoring that progress and change is occurring. It's also ignoring the success of the F-22 and SR-71. They operate(d), at supersonic speeds at high altitude. Both are (were), untouchable by many missiles, due to their speed and altitude. By the time they're in your firing range, they're already out of it and even if you do get one off, like has often happened against the SR-71, and an evasive turn or evasive course has proven very effective in defeating inbound missiles using the high kinetc energy and maneuverability compared to a missile. The SR-71 wasn't exactly maneuverable or stealthy but was still able to pull this off all the time. The T-50 and J-20 will be much better since they will me more maneuverable and stealthier than the SR-71.

I bet the SR-71 has had more live SAM missiles and live A2A missiles fired at it over enemy territory than just about any other plane and never even got a scratch.

The F-35 is a subsonic airframe optimized for 25,000 feet with an operating regime, in all aspects, much more restricted than the current fighters. To date, the highest altitude it's reached is 43,000 feet. The world glider altitude record stands at 50, 699 feet.

This low energy regime dictates that the best tactic when encountering others newer jets, is to try to remain undetected and rely on low observability. Because being slower and lower, the F-35 can't force themselves into a favorable position. They'll need to rely on opportunity or a mistake.

However, Typhoon operators have already developed the wall formation - something anyone can replicate. Since the F-35 is not stealthy from all angles, with the wall formation, at least 1 Typhoon will have a radar look at the F-35 from an unfavorable angle to the F-35s. With datalink, all Typhoons will then see them.

This assumes the F-35s haven't been detected via IRST already and not radar.

In any case, for Korea, the attack role is probably much more important. For that, the F-15SE is hands down more effective. It carries so much, it's ridiculous. If Korea really needs stealth fighters, it'll have them in the form of US F-22s, which are in Korea right now.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:31 pm

The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:16 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it.

Which the F-35 can cruise at a comfortable Mach 1.2 for 150nm in a combat configuration...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless.

True, but stealth grants you the all critical first look, first shot advantage against a non-stealthy opponent. In combat the ability to place ordnance on the enemy and get the plane home are important. Dogfights are WWI tactics and this already rarely occured in WWII. Instead high spead passes on the enemy and team tactics dominated. So this incredible focus on very high levels of maneuverability is completely out of place. The integration of sensors and advanced weapon systems, plus the amount of beating a plane can take are much more important.

Look at the combat records of some of the most successful aces in the world; if you examined their fighting styles, it becomes very clear there are two distinct types of fighter pilots; one that predominantly uses team tactics to overwhelm the enemy, the second type is the stalk and ambush ace. Erich Hartmann is a great example of a pilot that was predominantly a stalk and ambush pilot. By his own account, he was convinced that 80% of the pilots he downed did not even realize what hit them. And he was never shot down, and more importantly, he never lost a wingman.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.

Oh please.

The problem was not with the plane, it was that they raised the bar for the VLO description, so the F-35 could not make the new mark, not that the plane suddenly became larger on radar. The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

To be very blunt and quick: the terms VLO and LO were redefined by the US DoD. NOTHING changed about the spec or the capability of the F-35 with regards to it's low observable performance.

The confusion may have come from perceptions of Low observables varying by degree of familiarity AND the desire to avoid classified discussion (we are borderline branching into things that are considered OPSEC). All VLO aircraft are by definition LO, and for general conversation in the public, ‘LO’ is a good enough characterization – just as the very deep ocean is often described as just ‘deep’ unless you’re an oceanographer talking to another oceanographer.

A word of caution regarding using terms like LO/VLO:

1. They are generally considered marketing terms.
2. They are sometimes used interchangeably on the F-35.
3. Lockheed refers to the F-35 as “VLO” at both of their sites (Lockheed.com and F35.com) yet refers to the F-22 as “LO” on www.f22-raptor.com and “VLO” on Lockheed.com.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-35 is a (sustained) 4.6G airplane (9G instantaneous, or maximum), the F-16 is a 9G airplane (not including the F-16E/F, which are 7.5G).

A F-16 isn't a 9G airframe when combat loaded; many stores have G limits well below that number. Such stores include the current drop tanks, and JDAM's.

And the sustained G limit is a temporary restriction; there is an issue discovered during testing of unusually high temperatures on the rear tail. Until they can place sensors on the area to better observe the situation and conduct more flight testing to monitor the situation, they've placed a limit.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-15SE also carries more than twice the bomb load the F-35A does.

Nope. Equivalent. F-15SE needs external fuel tanks and the conformal tanks to achieve its range. Plus, you need a jammer, and targeting pod for the F-15SE. A F-35 can carry 15,000lbs of stores, primarily weapons, not fuel loaded wall to wall.

And the F-15E has never been loaded with 23,000lbs of ordinance; for one thing, if you did, you wouldn't have a whole lot of fuel. Most notional combat configurations of the F-15E only weigh in at around 71-76,000 lbs all in, of which only around 6-8,000lbs is actual weapons, as demonstrated by the combat load outs in OIF, OEF, OAF, and ODS. The rest is all empty weight and fuel, plus other stuff (like targeting and navigation pods). Once you look at an actual combat configured F-15E and compare it a combat configured F-35 loaded wall to wall with weapons, the differences disappear.

There's a website that lists some of the combat configurations of the F-15E in past conflicts that is a useful guide on past configurations: www.f-15e.info

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict.

I would not bet on that... against the most recent enemies we've been fighting (Iraq in OIF, Libya and Afghanistan), they had no real air defences to speak of. Against more prepared enemy, such as Serbia during OAF, or Iraq during ODS, SAM's were still a major worry even days into the air campaign. The losses suffered by the Package Q strike during ODS is a clear reminder that despite us achieving air superiority over an opponent, a more prepared and equipped opponent will still inflict serious harm if we don't respect the enemy and acknowledge that the enemy, although beaten, can still hurt us.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.

If you want, we could always go back to the Browning M2/M3 machine gun... or even a .30 machine gun. We will have lots of rounds for those guns in an aircraft, but I doubt we will do much in the way of damage.

The GAU-22/A Equalizer's 25mm round hits much harder and with more force than the 20mm round in the M61 Vulcan. The Equalizer has a slower rate of fire, but I will note that the muzzle velocity of the GAU-22/A is higher than the M61, and fires a heavier round that has anti-armour applications, making more useful in an air-to-ground role. The 25x137 mm cartridge pushes a 492g projectile at 3,630 fps compared to the 20x102mm cartridge which runs a 263g projectile at 3,380 fps. In terms of kinetic energy, the 25mm round packs 297.7 kJ compared to the 20mm round's 138.2 kJ. So it is essentially twice as powerful a round - flatter shooting, better penetration, heavier explosive fill. One hit is pretty much equivalent to two 20mm hits on soft targets and worth even more on armoured targets which requires the round to punch through a few centimeters of steel.

To give you a clear idea of the bigger punch the 25mm round has, see below for a comparison image between the various rounds of ammunition:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ModernAC.jpg

The M61 Vulcan 20mm round is 3rd from the left and the GAU-22/A 25mm is fifth from left. You can see how much bigger the 25mm round is compared to the 20mm round, both in terms of actual size and the actual cartridge size.

We are getting into the age old debate between two different ideas of aircraft cannon weaponry (the older US practice of lighter rounds fired more rapidly versus the European practice of heavier rounds at a lower rate of fire). However, the trend is leaning towards heavier rounds at a lower rate of fire, following the European practice. The AV-8B Harrier, I will note, uses the GAU-12 Equalizer which has 300 rounds of 25mm ammo in two external pods. The US is slowly starting to standardize on the 25mm round over the 20mm round as its standard aircraft cannon ammunition.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:34 pm

This is turning into one of those threads again.......
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:54 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.

The Koreans are only considering the F-35A as far as I know. I tip my hat towards the F-15SE winning for so many reasons. If they were considering the F-35B, that might have been different, as the F-15SE can't land vertically. But they're not considering that version. They haven't ordered anything yet. They may still order the Typhoon for all we know, which is actually the most capable of the 3 still in the running, for A2A roles. The F-15SE is better at A2G than Typhoon and it can carry Korea's existing munitions. The F-35 is inferior compared to the others in all metrics, except for Low Observability from the front. Not to speak of the timing issue with the F-35, which won't be fully combat ready till 2019 at the earliest and full rate production models won't be made till then.

In any case, the Koreans are not about to announce an order for anything anytime soon. It's still a ways away.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:06 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant.

Yes it is because those two are the aircraft F-35 is replacing!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The Chinese seemingly to me, learned from the J-10B, which is reportedly a very fast aircraft, capable of super cruise - with one engine.

No J-10B never claimed to have supercruising capabilities. I don't know where the heck you pulled that claim out, but it is wrong. For the first thing, J-10 is using the AL-31F engine, and the Chinese never claimed that the J-10 could even supercruise in the first place. The J-10B uses the WS-10A, which is supposed to be equivalent to the AL-31F engine, but from all indications, the WS-10A is having problems meeting performance and reliability targets.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
The T-50 and J-20 will be much better since they will me more maneuverable and stealthier than the SR-71.

Which is your opinion, and much like the saying, everyone has an opinion like they have a _____.

And don't think the generals, planners and designers that put together the F-35's specs haven't thought about speed. They probably (more precisely, would have) conducted a number of studies to see if additional speed made any sense in a combat situation, or is there a real limit in terms of how much speed is useful. In fact, they would probably would have to justify the performance spec they came out with to design the F-35 to appropriations. It was them that decided that they wanted F-35 to go to Mach 1.6. They didn't want a faster fighter.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
However, Typhoon operators have already developed the wall formation - something anyone can replicate. Since the F-35 is not stealthy from all angles, with the wall formation, at least 1 Typhoon will have a radar look at the F-35 from an unfavorable angle to the F-35s. With datalink, all Typhoons will then see them.

A F-35 walking into that situation will only be the result of some extremely poor operational planning to the verge of utter and complete incompetence, and a less than intelligent pilot at the controls that's ignoring every single warning signal blaring out at him.

First off, F-35's will likewise operate in groups. No combat fighter will ever go into battle alone. He's going to have one wingman, if not more. A F-35 will detect a Typhoon from a much further distance away than the Typhoon will even hope to even remotely see a F-35 because the Typhoon will be emitting radar signals that will be detected by the ESM and ECM equipment on F-35 at a much further range than the Typhoon can reasonably expect to receive a return. A F-35 pilot can then orient themselves to face the group accordingly to reduce their signature.

Secondly, the F-35 will lock onto the Typhoons at a much further range than the Typhoons will even have a chance to detect a F-35. F-35's will then be the first ones shooting at the Typhoons, which means that the Typhoons will then have to make a run for it otherwise, they will be shot down. Not only that, the F-35's radar is an LPI system; unless you're the one emitting and you know the exact moment and frequency and output power of each beam, a sub-microsecond burst will look very much like thermal noise or background static in any system trying to detect it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):
This assumes the F-35s haven't been detected via IRST already and not radar.

You do realize how small the detection area and the range of a IRST is, right? You will be lucky to get 60km out of any good IRST today in normal conditions in addition to how it is like looking at the world through a straw. Not only that, IRST systems are very bad at determining the range to target, and is therefore pathetic for guiding a missile. Unless you have cueing from another source, it's doubtful that consistent detection at the maximum range of the system will occur.

IRST cannot search a volume of sky like a radar and it can't determine range. The plane flying with a modern fighter radar will almost always beat an opponent relying upon IRST. It's like a man with one eye, a telescope and a pistol trying to kill a guy with two eyes, binoculars and a sniper rifle. Sure, the one eyed guy could win, but it's only going to happen less than 10% of the time.

Don't get me wrong, in thinking I'm saying that it's not helpful to have an IRST. I just don't think that it's reached the level to where you can say that it's more important than radar.

Oh, and F-35 also has a IRST as well.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:10 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

You are pulling this out from nowhere as you have no way of knowing this. This is the most classified part of the F-35 program and the GAO reports never make mention of that, because that's classified. They only mention certain critical metrics are classified. Please don't talk like you know this as a fact, because you don't. reading between the lines, why would the GAO remark that certain classified metrics are troublesome. That could very easily be the radar signature among other things. It's possible and neither you nor I know.

The comparison of any other newer fighter Vs. the F-35, is a natural progression, because that's all there is from the US DoD. The US DoD has put all of their eggs in the F-35 basket, so everything else has no choice but to make an F-35 comparison. If there were some other fighter the US DoD were procuring in the future, from 2020 onwards, we would have something else to compare, but we don't. The US DoD is about to become a one note piano.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
A F-35 can carry 15,000lbs of stores, primarily weapons, not fuel loaded wall to wall.

I doubt the F-35 even has the space and pods to hang that much weight.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:23 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
A F-35 walking into that situation will only be the result of some extremely poor operational planning to the verge of utter and complete incompetence, and a less than intelligent pilot at the controls that's ignoring every single warning signal blaring out at him.

You don't quite understand the wall formation. The planes would be spread out, searching for a stealth plane from various angles simultaneously and in datalink sync with each other. As far as I know, the F-35 only has one nose. It can only point it in one direction at a time. What is an F-35 pilot to do, if the has multiple fighters from multiple angles on him? It has nothing to do with what the pilot does. It's not his fault he only has one nose.

If the F-35 always fires a missile from long ranges, that does not stop the opponent from firing back at the F-35. It gives them more time to do so. I think you have this notion that all missiles hit and that as soon as you see a target and fire they're as good as dead and your safe. It's not like that at all. You also totally ignore the firing position you need to be in to even be able to git the target, even if it's a balloon.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:13 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
You don't quite understand the wall formation. The planes would be spread out, searching for a stealth plane from various angles simultaneously and in datalink sync with each other. As far as I know, the F-35 only has one nose. It can only point it in one direction at a time. What is an F-35 pilot to do, if the has multiple fighters from multiple angles on him? It has nothing to do with what the pilot does. It's not his fault he only has one nose.

So you are talking about a bunch of Typhoons against one F-35, right? I'm tell you that this will never happen in an actual combat situation. Fighter jets work in groups, F-35 included. To send one aircraft up against 10 is stupidity.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
If the F-35 always fires a missile from long ranges, that does not stop the opponent from firing back at the F-35.

How can you, you don't even have a fix on the F-35's location, nor a weapons lock. Unless you like firing weapons blind and unguided.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 29):
I think you have this notion that all missiles hit and that as soon as you see a target and fire they're as good as dead and your safe.

It doesn't matter; I got you mission killed. Almost as good as blowing you up for most purposes. You now have to eject any ordinance and external fuel tanks to get your weight down so you can defeat my missile and if you managed to survive, you got no weapons left save for your cannon and maybe some shorter range weapons, and you are low on fuel. You have to go back to base now.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
You are pulling this out from nowhere as you have no way of knowing this.

These article seems to agree with me:
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...2/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx
http://defensetech.org/2011/06/23/how-stealthy-is-your-f-35/
http://www.janicki.com/f-35-halo-pole-model-inverted-for-testing

And the fact that stealth signature testing was done in 2010 and not a bleep about the F-35 failing to meet specifications on the signature says a lot. If the signature wasn't to spec, someone would have said something, even if it is carefully worded to avoid security issues.

Quote:
June 16, 2010 Sedro-Woolley, WA – Janicki Industries' expertise in building composite prototypes was tapped by Lockheed Martin in producing the Full Scale Pole Model for its F-35 stealth fighter jet program. The model is now being used to test radar signature and other key performance data. High fidelity Radar Cross Section (RCS) testing of HALO has validated the accuracy of the predicted F-35 stealth signature performance over a broad elevation and frequency range.
Quote:
U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. C.D. Moore, the Pentagon’s deputy JSF program manager then chimed in saying:

“I would only add that the core requirements, the technical requirements that have been laid out in the program and our ability to meet those requirements…the low very observable characteristics, the low radar cross section, we’re achieving that; so when we think about lethality, survivability with the weapons with the very low observable capability, with the agility, maneuverability the sensor suit, it’s a combination of things that makes a weapons system effective. SO, instead of trying to speculate about what someone said about the weapons system in the press, all I can tell you is we have every intent of meeting the key performance parameters of the aircraft designated by our partners and the U.S. services and they’ve determined what capabilities are necessary for future war fighting needs.”
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
I doubt the F-35 even has the space and pods to hang that much weight.

You tell me:
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35_Weapon_Stations.jpg

Looks like there is enough room there.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:10 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):

So you are talking about a bunch of Typhoons against one F-35, right? I'm tell you that this will never happen in an actual combat situation. Fighter jets work in groups, F-35 included. To send one aircraft up against 10 is stupidity.

No, the more F-35's the better. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. With the F-35 carrying only 2 A2A missiles, it's not even a fair fight against fighters carrying something like 8-10 missiles each doing the wall formation.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 30):
You now have to eject any ordinance and external fuel tanks to get your weight down so you can defeat my missile and if you managed to survive, you got no weapons left save for your cannon and maybe some shorter range weapons, and you are low on fuel. You have to go back to base now.

Um no. The Typhoon and Rafale, F-15SE and others carry recessed or fully internal missiles and ordinance and plenty of internal fuel. J-20, T-50 exclusively. No ejection required for combat or ti fire missiles. You make all kinds of assumptions in the perfect F-35 world.

You fail to even consider the fact that the F-35 has to be in a firing position to even fire on a blimp. Seeing is not enough. You blissfully ignore key requirements for combat.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:51 pm

If the F-15SE used F-110-132 engines, it could probably supercruise at mach 1.2 like the F-35. For some reason the US always goes for the lowest common denominator in terms of engine thrust.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:03 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
You blissfully ignore key requirements for combat.

Irony at its finest.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:02 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
With the F-35 carrying only 2 A2A missiles, it's not even a fair fight against fighters carrying something like 8-10 missiles each doing the wall formation.

I'm not going to even bother try to correct such fallacy considering I just posted a diagram displaying F-35's pylons and the weight capabilities of each pylon... But believe what you want.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
The Typhoon and Rafale, F-15SE and others carry recessed or fully internal missiles and ordinance and plenty of internal fuel.

Repeat what you want. But Typhoon and Rafale need external fuel tanks to even get anywhere near their stated combat range. Or are they going to fly on empty tanks, considering the low fuel fraction of the Typhoon and Rafale?

You do realize that the RAF are planning on replacing the type starting in 2015, with guess what, probably more F-35's? By 2030, all Typhoons are to be retired from RAF service.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 31):
You blissfully ignore key requirements for combat.

It seems like the reverse is more true.

Quoting NathanH (Reply 34):

I know we are talking about the SE, but the USAF definitely doesn't think the F-15's fighting days are over. Of if they do, I'm wasting a lot of my day writing software for upcoming upgrades to the Cs.

Well, the C's are probably going to hang around for another decade, probably longer in ANG service in second line and NORAD duties. The F-35's will probably go to front-line squadrons and the aircraft in best shape from those squadrons will be placed with second line squadrons, while everything else goes to the boneyard.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:19 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):While most close in fights are done below Mach 1, you need to exceed Mach 1 to get to the fight, or leave it.
Which the F-35 can cruise at a comfortable Mach 1.2 for 150nm in a combat configuration...

Yeap, 10.4 minutes of flying time to cover that distance. Okay, that gets you to the fight, now fuel is a problem, you don't have enough to fight for 3-5 minutes, then get your a$$ out of there for another 10 minutes at supersonic, then fly home.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):The whole purpose of stealth is optimized to prevent long range detection, and BVR. Once inside visual range, stealth is useless.
True, but stealth grants you the all critical first look, first shot advantage against a non-stealthy opponent.

You are not stealthy with all that garbage hanging off your wings. You are not stealthy once you open the doors.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
In combat the ability to place ordnance on the enemy and get the plane home are important. Dogfights are WWI tactics and this already rarely occured in WWII. Instead high spead passes on the enemy and team tactics dominated. So this incredible focus on very high levels of maneuverability is completely out of place. The integration of sensors and advanced weapon systems, plus the amount of beating a plane can take are much more important.

Better read more history about the USAAF, RAF, and USN during WWII, then read about Korea and Vietnam. Dog fights were much more common than you think.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Look at the combat records of some of the most successful aces in the world; if you examined their fighting styles, it becomes very clear there are two distinct types of fighter pilots; one that predominantly uses team tactics to overwhelm the enemy, the second type is the stalk and ambush ace. Erich Hartmann is a great example of a pilot that was predominantly a stalk and ambush pilot. By his own account, he was convinced that 80% of the pilots he downed did not even realize what hit them. And he was never shot down, and more importantly, he never lost a wingman.

Yes, Col. (Oberst) Hartmann did indeed have 350+ kills, mostly against Soviet Union aircraft and pilots, near the end of the war he fought USAAF P-51s. His ambush tactics did not work as well against USAAF pilots as it did against the Russians. He was never shot down, but was forced to run out of gas and a USAAF P-51B took a picture of him in his parachute. The Russians wrongly convicted him of "war crimes" .

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):Don't forget, around 2006 the F-35 had its stealth qualities reclassified from "very low observable" (as the F-117, B-2, and F-22 were), to "low observable", which is in reality a downgrade.
Oh please.

The problem was not with the plane, it was that they raised the bar for the VLO description, so the F-35 could not make the new mark, not that the plane suddenly became larger on radar. The radar signature stayed the same (the F-35 is from many sources, meeting targets on radar observability), it's just the pass mark that got higher. Paper qualification problem, not airframe problem.

Yes it is, the RCS of a F-35 is much bigger than that of a B-2, it is a problem with the airframe, it is a bigger problem on the F-35B/C than it is on the F-35A..

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
A word of caution regarding using terms like LO/VLO:

1. They are generally considered marketing terms.
2. They are sometimes used interchangeably on the F-35.
3. Lockheed refers to the F-35 as “VLO” at both of their sites (Lockheed.com and F35.com) yet refers to the F-22 as “LO” on www.f22-raptor.com and “VLO” on Lockheed.com.

ROTFLMAO. LO/VLO are official terms used by the DOD, and each has a very specific qualification attached to it. The F-35 does not qualify as a VLO airplane in the eyes of the DOD, or any of its customers.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):

And the F-15E has never been loaded with 23,000lbs of ordinance; for one thing, if you did, you wouldn't have a whole lot of fuel. Most notional combat configurations of the F-15E only weigh in at around 71-76,000 lbs all in, of which only around 6-8,000lbs is actual weapons, as demonstrated by the combat load outs in OIF, OEF, OAF, and ODS. The rest is all empty weight and fuel, plus other stuff (like targeting and navigation pods). Once you look at an actual combat configured F-15E and compare it a combat configured F-35 loaded wall to wall with weapons, the differences disappear.

The F-35 will never take off with a "full load" either. Combat loads are defined by the mission, not the max capability of the aircraft.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):Stealth is also not needed once air supremacy is achieved, which is about a few days into the conflict.
I would not bet on that... against the most recent enemies we've been fighting (Iraq in OIF, Libya and Afghanistan), they had no real air defences to speak of. Against more prepared enemy, such as Serbia during OAF, or Iraq during ODS, SAM's were still a major worry even days into the air campaign. The losses suffered by the Package Q strike during ODS is a clear reminder that despite us achieving air superiority over an opponent, a more prepared and equipped opponent will still inflict serious harm if we don't respect the enemy and acknowledge that the enemy, although beaten, can still hurt us.

Read what I said. I said "Air Supremacy", not "Air Superiority", they are two different things.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21): The F-35des have a 'bigger gun', a 25mm, but with only 180 rounds of ammo, the F-15SE has the standard F-15 20mm gun, but with 510 rounds of ammo, the same as the F-16. Going into combat, I would rather have more rounds of a smaller caliber, than a bigger caliber with fewer rounds (in this case less than half the number carried by other US built aircraft.
If you want, we could always go back to the Browning M2/M3 machine gun... or even a .30 machine gun. We will have lots of rounds for those guns in an aircraft, but I doubt we will do much in the way of damage.

I am well aware of the 'punch' different calibers have, much more than you have. The P-51 of WWII carried 6 .50 cal M-2s, with an average of 600 rounds per gun, not much more than the F-15. Why didn't you mention the A-10, its GAU-8A 30mm had almost 1200 rounds available?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 22):Comparing the F-35 to the F-16 and F-18 is irrelevant.
Yes it is because those two are the aircraft F-35 is replacing!

Ahhh, the ROKAF is replacing the F-4s, not the F-16s.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
No combat fighter will ever go into battle alone.

Really? Read about Ryan's Raiders in Vietnam, Look at F/FB-111 missions, or the RAF Mosquitos, or just about any reece airplane, including the SR-71.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Secondly, the F-35 will lock onto the Typhoons at a much further range than the Typhoons will even have a chance to detect a F-35.

Once he locks onto a Typhoon, or any other modern fighter in the world today, the 'target' will know it and will know exactly where he is.
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:06 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Yeap, 10.4 minutes of flying time to cover that distance. Okay, that gets you to the fight, now fuel is a problem, you don't have enough to fight for 3-5 minutes, then get your a$$ out of there for another 10 minutes at supersonic, then fly home.

150 miles at Mach 1.2 is very good, considering that the F-22 is supposed to do Mach 1.5 for 115 miles. The combat range of the F-35 is 672 miles, so it's fairly equivalent. F-35 has lots of internal fuel to do the job expected.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

You are not stealthy with all that garbage hanging off your wings. You are not stealthy once you open the doors.

And how long is that door open for? A few seconds? Not enough to lock on and engage.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Better read more history about the USAAF, RAF, and USN during WWII, then read about Korea and Vietnam. Dog fights were much more common than you think.

Better look at what's going on since Korea. The bottom line is we see more and more conflicts where electronics and factors "other than performance" are playing bigger roles, and its not just with airplanes. Its no longer about "higher, faster, tighter," the limits are being reached not just in cost of aircraft but in the limits of humans to endure what the aircraft can do (F-22 maybe an example of this).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
He was never shot down, but was forced to run out of gas and a USAAF P-51B took a picture of him in his parachute. The Russians wrongly convicted him of "war crimes" .

Yeah, because he ran out of ammo and fuel after shooting down 2 P-51's in that mission. He was about to take out number 3 before he realized he was out of rounds.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Yes it is, the RCS of a F-35 is much bigger than that of a B-2, it is a problem with the airframe, it is a bigger problem on the F-35B/C than it is on the F-35A..

Prove your assertion that the F-35B/C has a larger RCS than the F-35A.

And it is not that much bigger; according to Global Security.org, we are talking about a 0.005m2 to a 0.0001m2 comparison. But the F-35's stealth coating is much more maintainable.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

Read what I said. I said "Air Supremacy", not "Air Superiority", they are two different things.

You are not going to get air supremacy over a near peer enemy. The only way that will happen is if the enemy has no air force or air defence system to begin with.

But then, if the enemy has no air defence system to begin with, you don't need stealth or air superiority jets to take control of the skies.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Why didn't you mention the A-10, its GAU-8A 30mm had almost 1200 rounds available?

Because A: that gun is no longer made and B: it's a one trick pony, a big one at that. You do realize how big the GAU-8A is right? Here's a quick size comparison to a Volkswagen Beetle:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss255/HTransam/FairchildA-10Thunderbolt05GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg

You are looking at a very big fighter to house a GAU-8 and have it perform reasonably well stock. Otherwise, you could cut down and thin down the barrels, reduce the rate of fire and reduce the carried ammo to get it to fit in a reasonably sized fighter, but then you loose muzzle velocity, and rate of fire. But then again, you might as well get something like the GSh-301, GSh-30, GSh-6-30 or the GIAT 30.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The F-35 will never take off with a "full load" either. Combat loads are defined by the mission, not the max capability of the aircraft.

The same can be said for F-15E.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Ahhh, the ROKAF is replacing the F-4s, not the F-16s.

Even better, a F-35 is a major step up. Not that there's anything wrong with the F-15SE, it's also a step up.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Really? Read about Ryan's Raiders in Vietnam, Look at F/FB-111 missions, or the RAF Mosquitos, or just about any reece airplane, including the SR-71.

Note what I said: combat fighter, not recce aircraft. And Ryan's Raiders flew modified F-105F fighter bombers, and they were more hampered by the fact that they only had 4 F-105's and a similarly small crew pool. And I believe they lost at least 2 F-105's as well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Once he locks onto a Typhoon, or any other modern fighter in the world today, the 'target' will know it and will know exactly where he is.

The AN/APG-81 radar is an LPI set. And there are ways to fool a enemy into thinking that they haven't locked on until the very last minute... but we are entering into things that are OPSEC.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5264
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:44 am

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
The F-35 order is for the -B model, apparently for the ROKN. Looks like they may be joining the carrier club like the Italians.

Apparently, that news concerns Singapore...and is going through some minor...errr...'fact checking'.....

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-15SG_Armed_Boeing_lg.jpg
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.co...es/AIR_F-15SG_Armed_Boeing_lg.jpg.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ecides-to-fly-like-an-eagle-01141/

Quote:
"Sure, Singapore also wants 10 AMRAAM Spare Guidance Sections and an AMRAAM Programmable Advanced System Interface Simulator (PASIS). They also want 18 AN/AVS-9(V) Night Vision Goggles, the H-764G GPS with GEM-V Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM), and Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE-Plus) 'in support of a Direct Commercial Sale of new F-15SG aircraft.'

In other words, they’re about to buy another 12 F-15SGs as F-5 replacements and grow their fleet to 36, instead of buying 12 F-35Bs that won’t be useful until 2018 or later.

Because the fighters are a DCS sale, Singapore will manage it themselves, and figures aren’t disclosed. They’ve done this for all of their F-15SG buys, and past estimates for their 12-plane buys have been around $1.5 billion ($125 million per aircraft + support etc.). Their support and training infrastructure is already in place, so the total may be lower this time."


Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
They may still order the Typhoon for all we know, which is actually the most capable of the 3 still in the running, for A2A roles.

And Eurofighter is dangling a very enticing deal to be more than an 'also ran' this time around.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...e-48-eurofighters-in-s.-korea.html

Quote:
"SEOUL --- The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), which is competing with U.S. companies Boeing and Lockheed Martin for South Korea's fighter jet program, has offered to manufacture 48 out of 60 planes in local factories if it wins the multi-billion dollar deal, sources and company officials said Friday.

The multinational defense firm EADS's Eurofighter Tranche 3 has been bidding with Lockheed Martin's F-35 stealth jet and Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle for the 8.3 trillion won (US$7.3 billion) contract to replace the South Korean Air Force's aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s from 2016.

The Defense Acquisition and Procurement Agency (DAPA) has already completed the first round of negotiations with Boeing and EADS over pricing, officials said, while Lockheed Martin, which offers the F-35 through the Foreign Military Sales program, is still in consultations.

With negotiations over other conditions, including technology transfer and delivery time, nearing completion, EADs has recently proposed raising the number of Eurofighters to be built in South Korea.

'Procurement officials and EADS officials have negotiated over the number of aircraft to be produced in the nation for nearly two years,' a military source said, citing ongoing negotiations. 'EADS, which had initially proposed to manufacture 30 planes in South Korea, has recently decided to increase the number.'

EADS officials confirmed that the company has made the higher offer with promises of technology transfer needed to build the airplanes."



However, it's uncertain if it would make much headway against the incumbent.

[Edited 2013-04-06 20:02:33]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:41 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
150 miles at Mach 1.2 is very good

That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

Besides, it takes a eternity for the F-35 to get to Mach 1.2 with afterburner. It's just not a practical for it to have its afterburner lit for so long. Comparing the F-35 at 25,0000 feet going subsonic to the F-22 class jets is a sorry sight. No amount of electronics and situational awareness is going to change the physical and with it the combat advantage these have over the F-35.

Try this, what is the range of an AIM-120D when fired from a plane at 25,000 feet traveling MACH 0.90 at a target at 65,000 traveling at MACH 1.5, moving away from the launch plane? Perfectly on the nose. If you want try 30 degrees off the nose and recalculate. You'll be surprised how short the range is.

Now do the revers, with the missile fired from the faster, higher plane with the slower plane one moving away. You'll be surprised how much farther the missile can travel. Unless you plan on ramming planes, you need to know this information as a pilot. You are not going to shoot your 2 missiles at targets they have no chance of reaching, are you?

[Edited 2013-04-06 20:43:36]
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:15 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):

That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight

Gee, you know so much about how a fighter should fly, why, don't you present your credentials and your theories to the USAF, the DoD, the Pentagon, the Senate and every foreign nation buying the F-35 to argue your point? I'm sure you will get a wide audience that will agree with you.

I can get more nippy and sarcastic, but that would be a personal attack. I'm not certain if you know what you actually are talking about, misguided, or just trolling. I am hoping for the best, but the more I see about it, the more I am thinking you are making absurd statements to get a rise out of people because you constantly ignore facts that are contrary to your position and don't offer any reason to support your claims.

I'm not going to bother with your claims because it is clear that you refuse to listen. It's like talking to a brick wall.

And we are SERIOUS off-topic on the subject of Korea and their planned purchase of F-35's or F-15SE's. Any further responses after this should go back on topic otherwise the mods should delete any subsequent off topic post.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:46 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
Quoting NathanH (Reply 34):
I know we are talking about the SE, but the USAF definitely doesn't think the F-15's fighting days are over. Of if they do, I'm wasting a lot of my day writing software for upcoming upgrades to the Cs.
Well, the C's are probably going to hang around for another decade, probably longer in ANG service in second line and NORAD duties. The F-35's will probably go to front-line squadrons and the aircraft in best shape from those squadrons will be placed with second line squadrons, while everything else goes to the boneyard.

The USAF has no "second line squadrons", they are all fully combat ready and fully "front line squadrons".

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
You are not stealthy with all that garbage hanging off your wings. You are not stealthy once you open the doors.
And how long is that door open for? A few seconds? Not enough to lock on and engage.

It is fractions of a second.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
That's below marginal. One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight
Gee, you know so much about how a fighter should fly, why, don't you present your credentials and your theories to the USAF, the DoD, the Pentagon, the Senate and every foreign nation buying the F-35 to argue your point? I'm sure you will get a wide audience that will agree with you.

I can get more nippy and sarcastic, but that would be a personal attack.

Sounds snippy to me. BTW, tommytoyz is correct.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
I'm not going to bother with your claims because it is clear that you refuse to listen. It's like talking to a brick wall.

But you are 'open minded' to opposing views?

The ROKAF should just get the F-15SE and get this done.
 
bilgerat
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:45 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 34):
You do realize that the RAF are planning on replacing the type starting in 2015, with guess what, probably more F-35's? By 2030, all Typhoons are to be retired from RAF service.

Can you source that please? The plan is to retire the early Tranche 1 Typhoons beginning 2015. The UK hasn't actually committed to procuring the F-35 yet, a decision will come as part of the 2015 defence review. Current speculation is the UK will procure less than 50.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 4:37 pm

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 41):
Can you source that please?

from the other thread in response to :

'and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda."

Thepointblankresponse:
"This is the internet, you don't have to authenticate anything."
 
Ozair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:02 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
BTW, tommytoyz is correct.

That is fantastic news. I follow the F-35 program pretty closely, especially the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft and gather all the info I can. Hence please KC135TopBoom or Tommytoyz provide the source document/link that gives you both such certainty that the aircraft performs as Tommytoyz said it does below.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
One turn or slight climb and the F-35 falls below Mach 1.2 needing to light afterburner to maintain supersonic flight or fall to subsonic speed, because below MACH 1.2 is the high drag transonic zone. It really can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:48 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 43):
provide the source document/link that gives you both such certainty that the aircraft performs as Tommytoyz said it does below
Effects of shockwaves become apparent well in advance of the aircraft reaching Mach 1 when parts of the airflow around the aircraft become supersonic. This regime, roughly from Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.2, is called the transonic regime. The onset of the transonic regime occurs when some spots on the aircraft start to create supersonic flow and cause shockwaves.

Nevertheless, the transonic flight regime is in all aircraft characterized by the sudden increase in drag which needs to be overcome somehow. Modern fighter craft usually utilize the increased thrust of afterburners to accelerate through the transonic regime quickly.


http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understan...Supersonic_Flight#Transonic_Flight

The F-35 can't maintain super sonic flight without afterburner except straight and level or descending, if all it can do is MACH 1.2 without afterburner. We know for a fact that the F-35 needs afterburner to cross the high drag transonic zone, which ends at MACH 1.2. And it does so very slowly. It's slow acceleration through that zone is not because of a lack of power. Look at an F-5 and you can clearly see the shape in the center of the fuselage that facilitates supersonic speeds. The thrust to weight ratio of the SR-71 at full afterburner was only 0.38. Aerodynamic properties have a far greater effect on supersonic speed than power does.

Unless the F-35 has altered the laws of physics, it is bound to the existing ones. If you go on fighter forums, the energy required and how it bleeds off during maneuvering is often discussed. It takes energy to turn or to climb and you lose speed or add power to maintain speed while you do that. That's just a fact anyone can look up.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
I can get more nippy and sarcastic,

Sorry you have issues.

I seriously doubt Korea would get good value or capability for their money with the F-35A. I assume one of their biggest requirements is speed, with the populated centers so close to the border. That would make the F-35A the worst choice and the typhoon the best choice, though the F-15SE isn't slow either. However, I am not sure about the A2G capabilities of the Typhoon. Perhaps the F-15SE is a good compromise between speed and attack capabilities.

[Edited 2013-04-07 15:50:12]

[Edited 2013-04-07 15:52:12]
 
Ozair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:23 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
Effects of shockwaves become apparent well in advance of the aircraft reaching Mach 1 when parts of the airflow around the aircraft become supersonic. This regime, roughly from Mach 0.8 - Mach 1.2, is called the transonic regime. The onset of the transonic regime occurs when some spots on the aircraft start to create supersonic flow and cause shockwaves.

Nevertheless, the transonic flight regime is in all aircraft characterized by the sudden increase in drag which needs to be overcome somehow. Modern fighter craft usually utilize the increased thrust of afterburners to accelerate through the transonic regime quickly.

http://wiki.flightgear.org/Understan...light

Great, we all know this. This does not address the F-35 specific ability to remain at M1.2 supercruising.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
The F-35 can't maintain super sonic flight without afterburner except straight and level or descending, if all it can do is MACH 1.2 without afterburner.

How do you know this? Do you have access to program T&E data that has given you the ability to determine this?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
We know for a fact that the F-35 needs afterburner to cross the high drag transonic zone, which ends at MACH 1.2.

Agree, but so does the F-22 and so did the Concorde. This is no different to any other supersonic aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 44):
Unless the F-35 has altered the laws of physics, it is bound to the existing ones.

So you have the aerodynamic flow model of the F-35 and how it interacts past M1.2 and have determined that it will lose speed because it

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

I would like to see this model, the T&E data you have access to or the calculations you have undertaken to arrive at this conclusion.
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:07 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 45):
So you have the aerodynamic flow model of the F-35 and how it interacts past M1.2 and have determined that it will lose speed because it

Every aircraft loses speed if it turns or climbs, unless you add power as well. There is no plane that doesn't. I do not need data on the F-35 to know that. My personal experience also confirms this.

To stay supersonic without afterburner while maneuvering at MACH 1.2, the plane would need to add power be able to stay supersonic. This comes from the aftterburner in the case of the F-35. The F-15E is better here in that it can reach and maintain a maximum speed of Mach 1.1 without afterburner. So it can afford to lose a little speed and still get back to MACH 1.1 dry - in the transonic regime.

The F-35 can not do this without afterburner.

Only the Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 can currently super cruise well faster than MACH 1.2 without afterburner.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:22 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
Only the Rafale, Typhoon and F-22 can currently super cruise well faster than MACH 1.2 without afterburner.

Maybe in airshow configuration. Full weapons load with pylons, EFT's and pods? I don't think so.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1381
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:55 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
To stay supersonic without afterburner while maneuvering at MACH 1.2, the plane would need to add power be able to stay supersonic. This comes from the aftterburner in the case of the F-35.

Still no source so I will help you. The basis for your M1.2 claim is a quote from Air Force Magazine, http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...2/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx which says the following, The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.

There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."


So your source document for M1.2 is from Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan. Does O'Bryan indicate the F-35 is limited to M1.2? Does he say it cannot manoeuvre at M1.2? Does he say it

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
can't maintain supersonic flight at all, except under the most ideal of conditions going perfectly straight.

No he does not. You have assumed all of the above.

As an aside, we also know that at the point the comment was made the F-35 was approximately 20% through its T&E phase. As with all aircraft testing you increase the performance and margins the further you go through the test program so, in my opinion, it wouldn't surprise me if that level is increased at sometime in the future as the US DoD and LM understand more about the aircraft.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 46):
I do not need data on the F-35 to know that. My personal experience also confirms this.

You do need data if you want to make claims about what an aircraft is capable of, so either provide some source documentation or some calculations on how you reached that.

Anything else is not fact, but merely a conjecture/opinion/pluck without any evidentiary support and should be presented as such........
 
ThePointblank
Topic Author
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35's Or F-15SE's For South Korea?

Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:27 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
The USAF has no "second line squadrons", they are all fully combat ready and fully "front line squadrons".

True, what I meant was that units that will continue to operate the F-15 will probably not see intensive combat and be tasked duties and areas that are more secure.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
It is fractions of a second.

Humans can't react in such a time; it takes a computer to react that quickly. This is why some systems for ship defence have automatic engagement modes where the computer does all of the tracking, acquisition and engagement. Humans are not fast enough to react.

And the thing is, you still need to illuminate the F-35 with your radar to provide guidance and mid course updates until the missile can track the target independently. Remember, stealth is not just about avoiding initial detection; it is also about breaking the kill chain along the way.

Quoting bilgerat (Reply 41):
Can you source that please? The plan is to retire the early Tranche 1 Typhoons beginning 2015. The UK hasn't actually committed to procuring the F-35 yet, a decision will come as part of the 2015 defence review. Current speculation is the UK will procure less than 50.

Reuters and Jane's had an article:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/0...tain-usa-jet-idINL2E8II4D420120718
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/...hannel=defence&subChannel=business

The ultimate numbers (the RAF has committed to a minimum of 48 F-35B's) will be determined in 2015 in the defence review, correct.

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
from the other thread in response to :

'and you can of course authenticate this without using LM's propaganda."

Thepointblankresponse:
"This is the internet, you don't have to authenticate anything."

Double standard if you ask me; I have to authenticate everything, and you don't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FlyBoy747 and 2 guests