Forum: Program and politics

stereospace wrote:

This may be a bit off topic, but if the Norks invade the RoK, I honestly believe we'd save A LOT of innocent lives if we just nuked the bastards right in their tracks. Twenty-five 300kt hydrogen bombs, with the first five or ten in the tunnel openings, would put a real damper in the offensive. Probably save a million lives in process.

At first glance it might look like your saving lives but there really is no "cheap" way of doing these things (Iraq being the standout example, should have finished at mission accomplished, unfortunately it didn't).

If you were going to use 25x300kt weapons then you might also want to think up a good explanation to give the Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese when the massive cloud of radioactive fallout starts falling on their territory (depending on which way the wind is blowing that week). Hopefully something more comprehensive than "Oops". Given that you're using that many weapons you could probably expect some fallout in Alaska, Canada and the US as well so, hello lawsuits.

The other thing is that a study was done a few years ago that made it's way into Scientific American describing the impacts of a limited nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. It turns out that so much dust gets raised into the high atmosphere by even a limited exchange that it can result in significant drops in sunlight reaching the surface (~5% IIRC) for years with direct knock-on effects on global agricultural output. Hello more lawsuits.

Nukes - really not the cheap option.

F-16.net Sponsor

But does that solve the global warming problem?

Everyone and Everything will glow in the dark afterwards so that will decrease energy use at least.

The F-35 should be good in maneuverability, climb rate, combat radius, aerodynamic and stealth. But it's just too expensive to buy and to maintain. When they said easy to repair with modules, do they mean the entire module require replace and the damage part could not be fixed on the spot like BMW? Looking at much of its unnecessary electronics including opening/closing canopy, touch screen with most mechanical parts that would last long removed, it's nothing more than maintaining an expensive BMW rather than tough reliable American car. Probably these unnecessary gadgets are fitted there for LM to make huge profit via maintenance like BMW draining cash from rich buyers pocket.

The newer F-15s will be good enough for SK to fend off NK invasion force. F-35 is only there as supplement and for special deep interdiction mission only. Not even ideal suitable to replace entire fleet of F-15s and F-16s or else will drive the air force bankrupt in maintaining the stealth layer and sophisticated luxury gadgets. When comes to war, there is always high risk of facing scarcity, you don't expect to have the trained engineers to be on standby at all time, sometimes would require to reload and refuel then get back up in the air without maintenance. Mechanical parts are always more reliable and last longer than electronic gadgets. You don't need computer to open the hatch for you. F-16, I could load up 12 AGM-65 enough to blow up 12 tanks. F-35 with internal load of 2 JDAMs, how many tanks could it destroy? If it is fitted with external weapons, isn't it a bit heartache if it took some hits on the wings and the stealth panels ain't cheap to replace.

Also, there's no radar that could detect stealth aircraft at the moment. Back in Serbia, no 1 thought the poor Serbians would have the capability to track and shoot down F-117A and after the successful attack, US stopped all stealth B-2 and F-117 from participating the war forever thinking that Serbia has the new experimental radar. Who knows, maybe the Russians are making 1. If they already had radars that could detect stealth aircrafts, those who spent entire banks cash to buy large numbers of F-35s, wonder how will they feel? Strip the heavy stealth panel layers away and weapon bay doors?

The S300/400 long range SAMs (SA-10/12), are they effective enough to detect low flying aircrafts on terrain masking? If no, that means F-15/16 could still perform SEAD alongside AH-64 Apache to clear way for the bombers. I don't think the Mach6 capable S300/400 long range missiles could maneuver better than smaller SA-17 missiles. Also, SAMs could be jammed and spoofed easier than air to air missiles. Also, F-15 and F-16 now have upgraded RWR capability.

Last edited by Conan on Aug 16, 2012 - 05:01 PM; edited 1 time in total

1. There are plenty of radars that could detect an F-117 or a B-2A an F-22A or yes, an F-35. It's the range at which they can do so however that is the issue. The low observability measures built into these designs are intended to reduce reflected radiation that can be detected by a radar, not eliminate it entirely.

2. The USAF has not stopped using F-117 (up until it's "retirement" in 2008 or so) or the B-2A post the F-117 shoot down in Serbia. It didn't even stop using them over Serbia. Hundreds more missions were flown there between the shootdown in March and the end of the operation in June 1999.

3. No-one has created a radar or system that makes low observable technology obsolete and no-one WILL any time soon. The reason is because this technology like the weapons v armour debate continues to evolve. Furthermore detecting a low observable platform is only one thing that needs to be done. One of the strongest capabilities of a fast mover, is that they move. Fast. So what use is detecting an aircraft if you can't track this aircraft? If you can track an aircraft you then have to be able to provide a firing solution against it.

When you consider all that, plus all the elements of the equation (jamming, standoff weapons other systems and capabilities) you'll consider the sort of "stealth is obsolete" argument is as simplistic and ridiculous as it sounds.

Good points Jayraptor....yes, we should flying Sopwith Camels because they very mechanical Very Happy

. In addition to Conan's points, the F16 is actually a very electronic jet. In fact it was known as the electric jet. Sure it had its share of teething problems early on but they are not exactly falling out of the sky in great numbers are they? F16s have things called LRUs which can't exactly be fixed with pig iron and a hammer on the flightline. Good regular maintenance is key to maintaining an aircraft's flight worthiness and mission readiness regardless how "electronic" an aircraft is. Hmm...the Indian Air Force Mig 21s are quite "mechanical" based on your standards but the accident/mishap rate of these birds are not exactly stellar. That is enough for me, I have gone way off topic.

Dear Conan,

In fact, since the F-117 was first shot down, USAF immediately halted all F-117 and B-2 sorties, at first have doubt whether Serbians had acquired any sort of high tech sensor that could detect stealth. Please check again. Only later after intel found out and Serbians gave away the reason, US allowed only B-2 to fly in at high altitude beyond reach of SA-6. Reason why Serbs could down the F-117 because Americans are so lazy to plot new course and would use the same path that they think safe again and again. Stealth aircrafts especially F-117 with generation 1 stealth layer could be detected and tracked by normal GCI and mobile radar when at less than 5Nm away.

If I were the US Minister of Defense, I would order stealth F-22/35 and at the same time conventional variant F-22/35. Main factors to look at:
1) the price per unit, if too expensive to own and maintain, you don't expect 200 F-22 and 900 F-35 to replace the entire USAF/USN/USMC fighters arsenal of more than 2000 combat aircrafts to watch over US and allies? Then the additional existing pilots that don't have plane to fly, are they going to lose their jobs?
2) Stealth aircrafts carry limited weapons internally and would beat the purpose if carried weapons externally and risk losing/damaging expensive aircrafts.
3) Stealth layers ain't cheap per piece, that is why F-22 limited to Mach 2 while F-35 limited to Mach 1.6 as damage to its surface due to windforce would be costly. Would drive America bankrupt. Also added much weight to the aircraft, that is why F-22 and F-35 are that heavy. Internal weapons bay also helps added the weight.
4) Putting 100% hope on stealth aircraft is like back in Vietnam where they thought having gun is pointless and stick only to missiles. Can the F-22 or F-35 intercept targets at over 100Nm well? AIM-120D, is it flying at Mach 4+ or Mach 5+? Do you expect it to intercept incoming bombers and cruise missiles? How many air to air missiles could they carry?

Ever wonder why there are more crashes involving the existing F-15/16/18? Because they are aging and the structure/frame if being flown too many times would require lots of major patch job and over certain period, would be beyond repair. Alternative is to have numbers of non-stealth F-22 and F-35 without the stealth layers or having less layers for low RCS and removed the internal bay. It will make the conventional F-22 and F-35 way more agile, lighter and faster. Also would cost less to operate and able to destroy more aircrafts, tanks, cruise missiles, etc. The external loads allow you to carry larger long range Mach 5/6 air to air missiles replacing AIM-54. Besides, the F-22 has track range of over 160Nm, search range 200Nm, at least could put it to good use.

Dear Mk82,

Sopwith Camel did not even pass proper law of Physics, Mig-21 is not even perfect design physically neither. The thing with LM is they are giving too much unnecessary electronic gadgets with intention to increase their own pocket money rather than for good. Imagine you own hightech car having Electric Power Steering, electric powered boot, electric powered bonnet, electric seat, computer controlled autostop and autopark, etc. Electric power steering EPS tend to overheat causing your car could not turn if it happen, also without battery, you might not able to turn the wheel when your car battery died on middle of the road when driving at 60mph, are you going to hit whatever in front if you could not even step on the brake? If you managed to pull aside, because the bonnet/hood and boot/trunk require battery power to open, you can't and happen to be middle of the night with your cellphone in the trunk. Car rear seat has no splitfold, does it mean you are totally helpless?

I don't mind having high tech radar, jammer, RWR, etc as these are helpful in increasing your survival. But what does computer controlled hatch got to do? Help you feel more luxurious? So luxury that there's the case where the pilot could not grab the oxygen assist resulted in crash? Check YF-23, it uses reliable F-15's cockpit so that you have less worry. Those switches are proven to last 10 years if well taken care of. Electronic computer touchscreen, it could die without symptom or sign, just like that. If you never owned a car or even if you do, you don't have problem throwing much money to maintain, I doubt you will understand a word I say.

Also, it is entirely wrong to let only 1 single contractor to supply aircrafts for Air Force, Navy and Marine. No competition means that monopoly contractor would more likely take things for granted and getting greedy till they only care about profit. Since the F-22 and F-35 are so expensive, why not revive the F-23 and F-32 that seems to prioritize practicality and at the same time wanted to meet the 5th generation fighters requirement? Give them a chance as we don't want to see another passionate manufacturer like Mc'D dies. Understand?

"Understand?" No. Please explain.

spazsinbad wrote:

"Understand?" No. Please explain.

I'm counting the minutes til the immortal phrase "Russia:STRONG" is uttered.

Smile

Clearly, the world would be a pretty boring place if we all always agreed about everything, but it is moronic posts like those above that silence any intelligent conversation and drive people away from this forum. They are so ridiculous as to not warrant a reply. Maybe if they are ignored he will go away.

Trying not feed these ridiculous posters you mention about JetTest but man Jayraptor got some real gems...Sopwith Camel not obeying the "proper" laws of physics??? I wonder why the Sopwith Camel needs wings then, it must have some magical antigrav device to let it do barrel rolls :p. Can the F22 and the F35 intercept bombers and cruise missiles? Hmm...the F22 has superb performance, a working radar and can fire and guide high performance missiles to turn any bomber or cruise missiles into hair, eyeballs, teeth and scrap metal. I bet the F35 could do that as well with proper tactics and weapons even though it does not have F22 performance. The AMRAAM especially the D variant is not to be sniffed at lightly either. "Conventional" F22s and F35s???? That is pretty pointless going through the expense and trouble of designing a VLO platform and then making a "conventional" and more vulnerable version of the platform. I could go on and on but it will get boring quickly. I will like to smoke what the J-man has been using, must be good s*** Very Happy

.

Oh yeah, breaking news. Cars have been pretty "electronic" for a while now. Here is the kicker...highly "electronic" cars today are more reliable than a 1970s mechanical car especially in terms of engine reliability in adverse conditions. ECU is a wonderful thing. Ancilliary electronics have come a long way in terms of reloabiloty...get with the times J man. Enough of this s***. Time to get back on topic.

Dear Mk82,

Sopwith Camel is only good during its time but still is not perfect flying machine. One strong gusting wind and storm is good enough to blow it away where it'll loose control and crash. If you say the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, physically they are good with ability to go all weather day and night without losing control like the Sopwith Camel. The F-22 and F-35 are good but because of someone with bad intention and ethic to dig big cash, they aren't that good in terms of price, maintenance, practicality and reliability. Also, it is wrong to put 110% faith in stealth that you will be safe from detection. If you do that especially when you are with ministry of defence, you are nothing different from the predecessors that removed the internal gun from F-4s with reason that the missiles are good enough to splash any incoming bogeys. When comes to war in Vietnam, the missiles missed at that high rate, and when ran out of missile, they could not do anything but to flee or wait for the MIGs to run out of gas.

Cars with electronics that are reliable are those with ECU electronics concealed in vacuum tight casing, together with the Multiplexer and basic active safety ABS, ESP, BA, Traction Control, etc. But still, they only last 10 years if the environment and surrounding ain't that bad. High tech sophisticated electronics like hybrid Invertor onwards, auto-park, auto-brake, EPS, they tend to have issues even within 3 years. Go find out more before you jump blindly to conclusion.

Dear JetTest,
Do you know the meaning of Freedom of Speech and Consumer Rights? If you don't, you should migrate to North Korea. Stick to topic, this is about Korean's rejection of F-35 and replacement for aging fighters. Are you working for Lockheed or something that you are to prevent others from posting WHAT IF situation with the advantages and disadvantages?

'jayraptor' asks us to: "...Stick to topic, this is about Korean's rejection of F-35 and replacement for aging fighters...." Hmmm. Topic of this thread (headline) is: Korea threatens to disqualify F-35. Has South Korea rejected the F-35? News to me.