OT: F-35 Performance downgraded (I told you so edition)

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?[:)]

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

Alfred [8D]

We warm them up with the special magical potion - Tim Horton's Coffee (trademark). The stuff "Canadian-izes" everything animate or inanimate

--

A very fair observation on the F35 about 5G - I think we are in violent agreement.

The detractors tend to critic the "known capability" especially based on a cost / capability assessment.

The boosters tend to stress "capability and future capability" which is less well understood.

However I think the "full and reasonable" assessment will not be known for some time.

Further Russian / Chinese 5G entries will never be given a 'full and reasonable" assessment as they are not open to disclosing facts / costs about their programs.

We mostly learn about the failures of such programs well after the fact.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?[:)]

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

Alfred [8D]

We warm them up with the special magical potion - Tim Horton's Coffee (trademark). The stuff "Canadian-izes" everything animate or inanimate

--

A very fair observation on the F35 about 5G - I think we are in violent agreement.

The detractors tend to critic the "known capability" especially based on a cost / capability assessment.

The boosters tend to stress "capability and future capability" which is less well understood.

However I think the "full and reasonable" assessment will not be known for some time.

Further Russian / Chinese 5G entries will never be given a 'full and reasonable" assessment as they are not open to disclosing facts / costs about their programs.

We mostly learn about the failures of such programs well after the fact.

Yes, the much-hyped Soviet Foxbat interceptor had a fatal flaw - it's pilots wanted to be on the NATO side!

[fcooke]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There are obviously a lot of boosters and detractors of the F35 program.

Canada not the least.

I am certain the program is neither as good as some advertise nor as bad as other advertise. Inevitably the boosters focus on capability - the detractors on capability verses cost. We wont really have definitive assessed proof probably for many years ( as we learned with the F4 Phantoms with no guns, the F14 Tomcat as a carrier monster, the F16 as too big and heavy)

One can search the "interweb thingy" and find an article to support any view you wish to forward. Some reputable some not some current some old etc. Pro or Con

I think it is important to recall

1) A single plane or squadron of planes do not fight on their own. In addition other air superiority measures - AWACs, GPS, Drones heavens knows what - contribute to the overall tactical plan. This is not 1917 - dog fights over the trenches are not the 'only' facet of air combat.

2) The planes are also part of 'much more' combined arms tactics nowadays. Far more so since 1945. Far more so than Nam. Far more so than the first Gulf war although that is the most relevant comparison. Its not just other air superiority measures. Its ground forces / ships / helicopters and heaven know what more.

3) Western programs are subject to far more scrutiny than Russian / Chinese / weapons programs etc. Simply freedom of the press and public cost accounting drive this greater transparency. There is a laundry list of failed Soviet / German (Axis) / Japanese (Axis) programs - however we generally find out many years latter because their military's are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or analysis.

As I say there are plenty of booster / detractors with many (self serving - argument) points.

Its all rather academic as they are just deploying now and have hardly been used.

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?[:)]

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

I think the F22 also qualifies as 5G [:D]

And are not the Sentrys and Hawkeyes supposed to do that battlespace management thingy?

I remember the Spruance DDs were built with not a lot of weapons with the idea that they would easy to upgrade. Never really happened in a material way. The Kidds always seemed to be more capable and are still around today (Taiwan I believe).

I hope the program ends up being a success. But I am a firm believer in having specialized aircraft rather than 'everything in one'.

And I really hope we never live to see how good/bad Russian/Chinese models are, because as alluded to - that will only happen via combat.

[BBfanboy]

+1 On never testing out the hardware in live action. Unfortunately, it looks like India and China could end up in a shooting war because China seems to be flexing muscles that don't really need to be flexed. It seems likely that Western nations would back India and send hardware there, if not the people to operate it. I think Russia is also leery of China's growing power and they have some border issues there too - so Russia is unlikely to back China. Still a dangerous powder keg that needs some really good diplomacy to cool it down.

[RangerJoe]

I enjoyed Tim Horton's coffee when I could get it. [:D]

The Chinese and Russians could see how they compare against each other. I would not complain too much unless they decided to have the other side glow in the dark.

[Canoerebel]

Tom Clancy was an awesome writer who faded under the obligation to contractually write books. IE, his later works were pretty much uniformly awful.

But I remember one book he wrote (or possibly co-wrote) about a war between China and Russia. He used the term "hyper war" to describe the frenetic pace of modern warfare incorporating lasers, computers, drones, etc. That was the first time I'd heard that term and it stuck with me.

Months ago, in Covid Thread I, a forumite noted that high stress sometimes results in a cascade effect (Michael Crichton used that term in Air Frame). The forumite hoped that the pressure on different countries wouldn't trigger a war, especially one involving major powers. To this point that hasn't happened, though it probably has contributed to the taut internal situation in the US.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Tom Clancy was an awesome writer who faded under the obligation to contractually write books. IE, his later works were pretty much uniformly awful.

But I remember one book he wrote (or possibly co-wrote) about a war between China and Russia. He used the term "hyper war" to describe the frenetic pace of modern warfare incorporating lasers, computers, drones, etc. That was the first time I'd heard that term and it stuck with me.

Months ago, in Covid Thread I, a forumite noted that high stress sometimes results in a cascade effect (Michael Crichton used that term in Air Frame). The forumite hoped that the pressure on different countries wouldn't trigger a war, especially one involving major powers. To this point that hasn't happened, though it probably has contributed to the taut internal situation in the US.

I think the book was "The Dragon and the Bear". China was bent on grabbing an area on the disputed Russia/China boundary because gold had been found there. US Intel discovered the plan and arranged to send the Black Horse Armoured Division secretly through Russia to the border with China. The Russians kicked the rust off of some of their old tanks and set up an ambush with the help of high-tech field intel from the Americans. Of course, the US saves the day - one of those predictable plots that brought down Tom Clancy's reputation.

[fcooke]

I did like a lot of the early Clancy stuff, and actually rented 'The Hunt for Red October a coupe of nights ago'. I have read Red Storm Rising numerous times. Also like some of the Larry Bond stuff. I know I used to have Airframe, but a number of things seem to have gone missing in our move a couple of years ago, including maybe a third of Morrison's naval history of the US in WW2. While not always accurate, it gives a sense of beliefs at the time. And it was a damn expensive set to buy [:@]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Tom Clancy was an awesome writer who faded under the obligation to contractually write books. IE, his later works were pretty much uniformly awful.

But I remember one book he wrote (or possibly co-wrote) about a war between China and Russia. He used the term "hyper war" to describe the frenetic pace of modern warfare incorporating lasers, computers, drones, etc. That was the first time I'd heard that term and it stuck with me.

Months ago, in Covid Thread I, a forumite noted that high stress sometimes results in a cascade effect (Michael Crichton used that term in Air Frame). The forumite hoped that the pressure on different countries wouldn't trigger a war, especially one involving major powers. To this point that hasn't happened, though it probably has contributed to the taut internal situation in the US.

I think the book was "The Dragon and the Bear". China was bent on grabbing an area on the disputed Russia/China boundary because gold had been found there. US Intel discovered the plan and arranged to send the Black Horse Armoured Division secretly through Russia to the border with China. The Russians kicked the rust off of some of their old tanks and set up an ambush with the help of high-tech field intel from the Americans. Of course, the US saves the day - one of those predictable plots that brought down Tom Clancy's reputation.

The Blackhorse is an Armored Cavalry Regiment, not a division. It is very powerful for its size and highly trained.

[Canoerebel]

Oops, mis-post. Ignore.

[Canoerebel]

Please ignore, x2

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

There are obviously a lot of boosters and detractors of the F35 program.

Canada not the least.

I am certain the program is neither as good as some advertise nor as bad as other advertise. Inevitably the boosters focus on capability - the detractors on capability verses cost. We wont really have definitive assessed proof probably for many years ( as we learned with the F4 Phantoms with no guns, the F14 Tomcat as a carrier monster, the F16 as too big and heavy)

One can search the "interweb thingy" and find an article to support any view you wish to forward. Some reputable some not some current some old etc. Pro or Con

I think it is important to recall

1) A single plane or squadron of planes do not fight on their own. In addition other air superiority measures - AWACs, GPS, Drones heavens knows what - contribute to the overall tactical plan. This is not 1917 - dog fights over the trenches are not the 'only' facet of air combat.

2) The planes are also part of 'much more' combined arms tactics nowadays. Far more so since 1945. Far more so than Nam. Far more so than the first Gulf war although that is the most relevant comparison. Its not just other air superiority measures. Its ground forces / ships / helicopters and heaven know what more.

3) Western programs are subject to far more scrutiny than Russian / Chinese / weapons programs etc. Simply freedom of the press and public cost accounting drive this greater transparency. There is a laundry list of failed Soviet / German (Axis) / Japanese (Axis) programs - however we generally find out many years latter because their military's are not subject to the same level of scrutiny or analysis.

As I say there are plenty of booster / detractors with many (self serving - argument) points.

Its all rather academic as they are just deploying now and have hardly been used.

Eh, how are our old Hornets adjusting to the cold?[:)]

The F-35 is the only true 5G plane option to the West. Critics have simply not understood what true 5G is. The F-35 is not intended to be all the things which the critics find fault with. The correct viewpoint is to view the F-35 (and any true 5G plane) as the conductor of the orchestra. A conductor brings out the greater synergy of the parts. The resulting performance is greater than the sum of the parts.

Alfred

I think the F22 also qualifies as 5G [:D]

And are not the Sentrys and Hawkeyes supposed to do that battlespace management thingy?

I remember the Spruance DDs were built with not a lot of weapons with the idea that they would easy to upgrade. Never really happened in a material way. The Kidds always seemed to be more capable and are still around today (Taiwan I believe).

I hope the program ends up being a success. But I am a firm believer in having specialized aircraft rather than 'everything in one'.

And I really hope we never live to see how good/bad Russian/Chinese models are, because as alluded to - that will only happen via combat.

1. The term 5G refers to firth generation fighters. The Sentrys and Hawkeyes are not 5G.

2. The Raptor is not for export to anyone. A few of the countries involved in the development and construction of the F-35 wanted to have the Raptor for their air superiority fighters. Which brings us back to my statement, the F-35 is the only true 5G option to the West.

3. I too prefer to have specialised aircraft. It would considerably shorten and simplify the development times. However, having specialised aircraft would not necessarily reduce capital or through life costs as larger sized airforces (both in terms of airframes and personnel) would then become necessary. That is a very difficult political ask where most voters believe any money spent on the military is wrong because it is at the expense of redistributing taxes to their direct personal benefit.

Alfred

[fcooke]

Not sure what a firth generation fighter is [:D]

I missed your interpretation on 5G aircraft available to the West as opposed to the US. Mea Culpa.

I never did claim that Sentrys and Hawkeyes were 5G. But they are dedicated platforms. And as an ex tech guy I prefer a dedicated plane/crew rather than a single seat computerized unit somehow managing the battlespace. One dog's opinion.

On the specialized aircraft I think we may agree and disagree. But to retire already paid for A-10s to finance more F-35s just seems dumb to me. In WW2 would you want to strafe in a P51 or a P47? In any case I think maintaining an A-10 will be oodles cheaper than maintaining an F35. But the AF doesn't seem to like CAS. But the guys on the ground sure seem to.

Larger forces on less dollars I can get my head around [&o]

Which I think would be the actual outcome. And like you mentioned it would not take almost 20 years to get a platform into service.

One can dream.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Not sure what a firth generation fighter is [:D]

I missed your interpretation on 5G aircraft available to the West as opposed to the US. Mea Culpa.

I never did claim that Sentrys and Hawkeyes were 5G. But they are dedicated platforms. And as an ex tech guy I prefer a dedicated plane/crew rather than a single seat computerized unit somehow managing the battlespace. One dog's opinion.

On the specialized aircraft I think we may agree and disagree. But to retire already paid for A-10s to finance more F-35s just seems dumb to me. In WW2 would you want to strafe in a P51 or a P47? In any case I think maintaining an A-10 will be oodles cheaper than maintaining an F35. But the AF doesn't seem to like CAS. But the guys on the ground sure seem to.

Larger forces on less dollars I can get my head around [&o]

Which I think would be the actual outcome. And like you mentioned it would not take almost 20 years to get a platform into service.

One can dream.

I think the idea of the F-35 is to have enough data processing and coms power to use satellites, drones, ground info and intel databases to maximum effect. Imagine the F-35 handling 100 drones, sending groups of them to handle threats and to attack multiple targets simultaneously. The enemy gets swamped and cannot respond as quickly as the F-35 and friends. The AWACs and similar aircraft are great to have, but there aren't enough of them and they use a mixture of detection/comms but rely on the forces they control to guide themselves with the info they provide. The F-35 would control all of it, if necessary.

There was an episode of Air Warriors on the Smithsonian Channel about the F-16. One segment was about an F-16 in Afghanistan called on for air support just as night had fallen. The pilot could not distinguish adequately between the friendly force that was surrounded and the Taliban that were closing in, so he contacted his base and arranged control of a Predator drone in the area. The drone had much better IR sensors and using them he directed the drone strike on the Taliban that enabled the surrounded troops to get to safety. Just a peek at what is possible with satellite links and local control of available assets.

[fcooke]

Just don't see how a single seat fighter can manage all that. A two seater with a RIO I can kind of get my head around.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Just don't see how a single seat fighter can manage all that. A two seater with a RIO I can kind of get my head around.

I vaguely recall the pilot from the incident saying he had a guy in the back handling the technical stuff. Don't know why a two-seater variant F-16 would be in Afghanistan - my lack of knowledge or all the capabilities and versions. I always think of two seaters as trainers rather than a two man combat crew.

[RangerJoe]

The A-10 does not fly fast and it does not look sleek. So the Air Force people in charge of things don't like it since they are more of the fighter air combat and fighter bomber types that can do many things. They usually don't have boots on the ground nor any ground training. Let the army have some more fixed wings and I am sure that they would take the A-10s. The Marines are trained in ground combat even if they are pilots, think of Marine A-10s although I don't know about putting a hook on them but since so many Marine pilots are hookers . . .

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The A-10 does not fly fast and it does not look sleek. So the Air Force people in charge of things don't like it since they are more of the fighter air combat and fighter bomber types that can do many things. They usually don't have boots on the ground nor any ground training. Let the army have some more fixed wings and I am sure that they would take the A-10s. The Marines are trained in ground combat even if they are pilots, think of Marine A-10s although I don't know about putting a hook on them but since so many Marine pilots are hookers . . .

When I was at a base in the Carolinas to pick up Airborne Troops for an exercise in Canada, the air base nearby had A-10s practicing takeoffs and landings. They flew a very tight oval and the turn of 180º to line up with the runway was beautiful to watch, a quick flip into a wingover, turn on a dime and straighten out. Fantastic maneuverability and slow speed that are needed to engage ground targets.

I saw a film once of what it looks like for a pilot of a low-flying F-104 Starfighter doing a treetop level ground attack mission. Stuff went by so fast it was all a blur and when he got to the target zone he had less than a second to acquire the target and release his bomb! Then he had to go full afterburner and turn hard to avoid potential light AA (they hated the ZSU-23/4 flack vehicles). The armoured A-10 with its better sensors and ability to go slow enough to make precision strikes is just such a huge advance.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Just don't see how a single seat fighter can manage all that. A two seater with a RIO I can kind of get my head around.

Which is why so much computational power is packed into the F-35.

The modern ide is that smart algorithms do a much better and quicker job than a second pilot/bombardier/navigator whatever, at a cheaper price in the long run too. Main reason why so much development time and cost is involved.

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The A-10 does not fly fast and it does not look sleek. So the Air Force people in charge of things don't like it since they are more of the fighter air combat and fighter bomber types that can do many things. They usually don't have boots on the ground nor any ground training. Let the army have some more fixed wings and I am sure that they would take the A-10s. The Marines are trained in ground combat even if they are pilots, think of Marine A-10s although I don't know about putting a hook on them but since so many Marine pilots are hookers . . .

When I was at a base in the Carolinas to pick up Airborne Troops for an exercise in Canada, the air base nearby had A-10s practicing takeoffs and landings. They flew a very tight oval and the turn of 180º to line up with the runway was beautiful to watch, a quick flip into a wingover, turn on a dime and straighten out. Fantastic maneuverability and slow speed that are needed to engage ground targets.

I saw a film once of what it looks like for a pilot of a low-flying F-104 Starfighter doing a treetop level ground attack mission. Stuff went by so fast it was all a blur and when he got to the target zone he had less than a second to acquire the target and release his bomb! Then he had to go full afterburner and turn hard to avoid potential light AA (they hated the ZSU-23/4 flack vehicles). The armoured A-10 with its better sensors and ability to go slow enough to make precision strikes is just such a huge advance.

I do believe that the ground forces, especially the Cavalry, was taught to take out all enemy AA capabilities. That includes the ZSUs as well as all missile equipped SAM vehicles.