Exit Galoot
- Banned
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 06 Jun 2013, 22:37
SR,
The F-16s which flew the Operation Bablyon/Opera mission to Osirak went 550nm from Etzion down the Red Sea over Southern Jordan/Northern Saudi and up 'over the lake' to the reactor complex just outside Baghdad. All with three tanks and 2 Mk.84. They dumped the wing tanks (a big risk at the time because jettison of adjacent wingstores was not fully characterized at the time) but kept the centerline tank and flew the entire mission back to Etzion at only 19,000ft because there were severe headwinds over this altitude. The F-15As which flew a similar ingress profile but which had CFT and two 610s plus ALQ-131 long and a datalink pod for standoff guidance/jamming of the first warshots into the dome and the local SA-6 Gainfuls around the site while also carrying 4 AIM-7F and 4 AIM-9D flew burner sprints to altitude to get lookin on the H2/H3 airfields and then took top cover roles at 40K, right in the heart of the headwinds to shepherd the Vipers all the way back. They dropped no tanks. And they had sufficient fuel reserves (ca. 6-8,000lbs) to then turn around and return to Tel Nof while the F-16s landed with as little as 400lbs remaining, less than the totalizer could accurately quantify.
Gas is good. But if the F-15s had been forced to fight over Iraq or Jordan on the way back, they would have _only won_ if they had resolved all combats at BVR. This is the principle vulnerability of the F-35 as well and it is one which will drive the 'Gorilla Strike Package' sizing as tanker gas pass through predicted carriage of netcentrically coordinated self defense weapons.
Which is where the whole argument of nekkidness vs. fueledness comes to a crashing halt in real world terms of beating back a principle S2A threat with...2 AMRAAMs.
Yes and no. If you have an honest 600 (A) to 700 (B) radius capability without AAR, you can probably arrange to put tanking where there isn't WX and/or refuel at a sufficiently low wingloading that you can avoid descending into the worst of the weather band around 12-19K.
That said, the real problem with the F-35 and gas is that you are running a single engine and a loaded IRT ratio of around .5:1 which means that your optimum flight cruise setting is going to be around .35:1 and so your transit profile is going to be lower and slower at a very inefficient point overall. Add to this the single engine issue and sheer fatigue of 2-3 hours each way and the potential need to keep the tankers well back from the combat area (Taiwan, Pacific Vision, J-20) and there is a major problem with where you put the gas and how many times you draw on it enroute. Radius ideals for total daily raid sizes get all mixed up with the fence or drag based tanker useage and total offload issues.
Compare this to the F-22 which is like the F-104 in terms of using 2/3rds of it's gas to get to supercruise and 40-50K feet, 200nm downrange but which can then go 550nm++ on perhaps 4,0000lbs more before dropping down to meet prepositioned tankers 'anywhere inbetween', getting topped off and doing another _leg_ of 300+nm before hitting the tanker again and coming home.
And the issues of where the gas comes from and how it's best used in an internal carriage heavy fighter (vs. medium weights designed for use over the NATO CentFront like the Eurocanards and the F-Teens) becomes more differentiatable. Specifically, the F-35 doesn't compete against the European jets or the Teen predecessors. It's best design point comparison is apt to be the J-31.
Ask any fighter driver under circumstances where he dares to speak the truth about the F-35 (as that one shaking-in-boots retired General did) and he will tell you that supersprint lunging with all of two long spears deep in enemy territory is a really, REALLY, bad idea.
Because the AIM-120D, despite having the full 11" motor increase of the ERAAM, still lacks a dominant pole advantage over the PL-12 and may well be double inferior to the PL-21 Meteor clone. Add to this the relevant issues of missile traps from longrange S-300/PAC-2 mod SAMs and you have to basically admit that the F-35's principle design point of an F-117 with BVR capability was flawed at best and is now no longer operationally suitable to a deep penetration strike optimized platform which may face ambush threats from around the clock.
In this, a better bullet (long impulse ramjet weapon using atmospheric oxidizer to an oxy-weak solid grain fuel element) is going to beat the F-35 acceleration to pole boost Mach, even when the F-35A is only off by 8 seconds. Because total flyout time as a function of CLOSURE is better than self-impalement of velocity vector on a forced entry to the other guy's WEZ detection threshold when your 'next best shot' is a 2,000ft GAU-22. If you want to talk about absurd fuel reserve issues, talk about trying to penetrate a 2+2 (J-10) or 6+2 (J-20) MRM/SRM threat condition when you only have 90 Raptors at the coalface and all of your SEAD assets ran out of gas 200nm back.
What I am saying here is of course that the F-35 is never going to be rateable for performance as a 'clean vs. dirty' (5 vs. 4) gen airframe but rather will have to adopt both NGJ and EWP to survive any real, near peer, threat environment.
What this will do to drag and RCS measurements is unknowable, though certainly the ability to launch with two outboard pylons carrying a total of 4 AMRAAM class missiles and 8 GBU-53 is going to present less of a headache than the equivalent loadout on naked rails and racks.
Yet even then, you will need to acknowledge the further splitting of your mission loadout between the required shots (using a 7" diameter AMRAAM motor+autopilot combination to perform SHARK level DEAD) need to blow holes in the SAM site coverage in achieving the necessary high/low/direct/off-axis standoff obliquity necessary for glide munition BRLs to time out over other OCA targets like airbases.
The principle flaw in the F-35 design which will drive this approach is the B model STOVL module which effectively took away the centerfuselage as a wideXshallow missile bay with mix equivalents to the F-22 and stuck the user services with deepXnarrow JDAM wells instead. The J-31 bay setup is likely what the F-35 should have looked like if the F-35B had been decoupled from the program once the concurrent technogy development risks became clear (GAO warned of this in 1997).
Still, if you accept that the F-35 is going to be just like the F-16C.50 with more gas and encapsulated vice internal weapons, it may be possible to 'make do', at least in the near term before F/A-XX, with a potential 6+16 or 10+8 roll back by fires mission capability.
It will _not_ be possible to do so if egotism as the fear of admitting mistakes leads people to continue to insist that the F-35 is a successful platform because it is a clean-stealth performance driven one.
For it to be useful will require that it be neither dragless nor particularly LO.
What about when you've got 40+ jets all now with greatly reduced fuel capacity? And not enough tanker support to nurse them all home? I'd like to see 72 F-16s jettison their fuel tanks over #### and then need to tank up every hour to get back to Italy. Possible - yes. Logistically a nightmare.
The F-16s which flew the Operation Bablyon/Opera mission to Osirak went 550nm from Etzion down the Red Sea over Southern Jordan/Northern Saudi and up 'over the lake' to the reactor complex just outside Baghdad. All with three tanks and 2 Mk.84. They dumped the wing tanks (a big risk at the time because jettison of adjacent wingstores was not fully characterized at the time) but kept the centerline tank and flew the entire mission back to Etzion at only 19,000ft because there were severe headwinds over this altitude. The F-15As which flew a similar ingress profile but which had CFT and two 610s plus ALQ-131 long and a datalink pod for standoff guidance/jamming of the first warshots into the dome and the local SA-6 Gainfuls around the site while also carrying 4 AIM-7F and 4 AIM-9D flew burner sprints to altitude to get lookin on the H2/H3 airfields and then took top cover roles at 40K, right in the heart of the headwinds to shepherd the Vipers all the way back. They dropped no tanks. And they had sufficient fuel reserves (ca. 6-8,000lbs) to then turn around and return to Tel Nof while the F-16s landed with as little as 400lbs remaining, less than the totalizer could accurately quantify.
Gas is good. But if the F-15s had been forced to fight over Iraq or Jordan on the way back, they would have _only won_ if they had resolved all combats at BVR. This is the principle vulnerability of the F-35 as well and it is one which will drive the 'Gorilla Strike Package' sizing as tanker gas pass through predicted carriage of netcentrically coordinated self defense weapons.
Which is where the whole argument of nekkidness vs. fueledness comes to a crashing halt in real world terms of beating back a principle S2A threat with...2 AMRAAMs.
Not too mention if weather doesn't permitting taking up. Then you're screwed. If the situation arises that you need to throw a hail mary by dropping stores, then things have gone terribly wrong with the mission and jettisoning tanks is grasping as straws.
Yes and no. If you have an honest 600 (A) to 700 (B) radius capability without AAR, you can probably arrange to put tanking where there isn't WX and/or refuel at a sufficiently low wingloading that you can avoid descending into the worst of the weather band around 12-19K.
That said, the real problem with the F-35 and gas is that you are running a single engine and a loaded IRT ratio of around .5:1 which means that your optimum flight cruise setting is going to be around .35:1 and so your transit profile is going to be lower and slower at a very inefficient point overall. Add to this the single engine issue and sheer fatigue of 2-3 hours each way and the potential need to keep the tankers well back from the combat area (Taiwan, Pacific Vision, J-20) and there is a major problem with where you put the gas and how many times you draw on it enroute. Radius ideals for total daily raid sizes get all mixed up with the fence or drag based tanker useage and total offload issues.
Compare this to the F-22 which is like the F-104 in terms of using 2/3rds of it's gas to get to supercruise and 40-50K feet, 200nm downrange but which can then go 550nm++ on perhaps 4,0000lbs more before dropping down to meet prepositioned tankers 'anywhere inbetween', getting topped off and doing another _leg_ of 300+nm before hitting the tanker again and coming home.
And the issues of where the gas comes from and how it's best used in an internal carriage heavy fighter (vs. medium weights designed for use over the NATO CentFront like the Eurocanards and the F-Teens) becomes more differentiatable. Specifically, the F-35 doesn't compete against the European jets or the Teen predecessors. It's best design point comparison is apt to be the J-31.
So the -35 hits a little speed bump in the transonic region. By how much? Let's toss out LO and all that goes into -35s flexibility by basically in same configuration for each and every mission, and having the same performance in each and every mission just so it can keep up with a clean (unusable) F-16 in the dash from M.9 to M1.2 below 20k and in standard atmospheric conditions.
Ask any fighter driver under circumstances where he dares to speak the truth about the F-35 (as that one shaking-in-boots retired General did) and he will tell you that supersprint lunging with all of two long spears deep in enemy territory is a really, REALLY, bad idea.
Because the AIM-120D, despite having the full 11" motor increase of the ERAAM, still lacks a dominant pole advantage over the PL-12 and may well be double inferior to the PL-21 Meteor clone. Add to this the relevant issues of missile traps from longrange S-300/PAC-2 mod SAMs and you have to basically admit that the F-35's principle design point of an F-117 with BVR capability was flawed at best and is now no longer operationally suitable to a deep penetration strike optimized platform which may face ambush threats from around the clock.
In this, a better bullet (long impulse ramjet weapon using atmospheric oxidizer to an oxy-weak solid grain fuel element) is going to beat the F-35 acceleration to pole boost Mach, even when the F-35A is only off by 8 seconds. Because total flyout time as a function of CLOSURE is better than self-impalement of velocity vector on a forced entry to the other guy's WEZ detection threshold when your 'next best shot' is a 2,000ft GAU-22. If you want to talk about absurd fuel reserve issues, talk about trying to penetrate a 2+2 (J-10) or 6+2 (J-20) MRM/SRM threat condition when you only have 90 Raptors at the coalface and all of your SEAD assets ran out of gas 200nm back.
What I am saying here is of course that the F-35 is never going to be rateable for performance as a 'clean vs. dirty' (5 vs. 4) gen airframe but rather will have to adopt both NGJ and EWP to survive any real, near peer, threat environment.
What this will do to drag and RCS measurements is unknowable, though certainly the ability to launch with two outboard pylons carrying a total of 4 AMRAAM class missiles and 8 GBU-53 is going to present less of a headache than the equivalent loadout on naked rails and racks.
Yet even then, you will need to acknowledge the further splitting of your mission loadout between the required shots (using a 7" diameter AMRAAM motor+autopilot combination to perform SHARK level DEAD) need to blow holes in the SAM site coverage in achieving the necessary high/low/direct/off-axis standoff obliquity necessary for glide munition BRLs to time out over other OCA targets like airbases.
The principle flaw in the F-35 design which will drive this approach is the B model STOVL module which effectively took away the centerfuselage as a wideXshallow missile bay with mix equivalents to the F-22 and stuck the user services with deepXnarrow JDAM wells instead. The J-31 bay setup is likely what the F-35 should have looked like if the F-35B had been decoupled from the program once the concurrent technogy development risks became clear (GAO warned of this in 1997).
Still, if you accept that the F-35 is going to be just like the F-16C.50 with more gas and encapsulated vice internal weapons, it may be possible to 'make do', at least in the near term before F/A-XX, with a potential 6+16 or 10+8 roll back by fires mission capability.
It will _not_ be possible to do so if egotism as the fear of admitting mistakes leads people to continue to insist that the F-35 is a successful platform because it is a clean-stealth performance driven one.
For it to be useful will require that it be neither dragless nor particularly LO.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04
^^^That^^^ was pretty much all over the place. Vaguely resembles an APA-style rant where someone attempts to concoct rather unlikely scenario and feed it into some gaming software. Garbage-in, garbage-out. 
Last edited by lookieloo on 07 Jun 2013, 02:03, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 28404
- Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
- Location: Australia
http://www.wildjunket.com/2009/02/03/th ... gday-mate/
"'Galoot' refers to a foolish person – you don’t wanna hear people call you that!"
"'Galoot' refers to a foolish person – you don’t wanna hear people call you that!"
Last edited by spazsinbad on 07 Jun 2013, 03:32, edited 1 time in total.
- Senior member
- Posts: 324
- Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 14:39
galoot wrote:SR,
...
Ask any fighter driver under circumstances where he dares to speak the truth about the F-35 (as that one shaking-in-boots retired General did) and he will tell you that supersprint lunging with all of two long spears deep in enemy territory is a really, REALLY, bad idea.
Because the AIM-120D, despite having the full 11" motor increase of the ERAAM, still lacks a dominant pole advantage over the PL-12 and may well be double inferior to the PL-21 Meteor clone. Add to this the relevant issues of missile traps from longrange S-300/PAC-2 mod SAMs and you have to basically admit that the F-35's principle design point of an F-117 with BVR capability was flawed at best and is now no longer operationally suitable to a deep penetration strike optimized platform which may face ambush threats from around the clock.
In this, a better bullet (long impulse ramjet weapon using atmospheric oxidizer to an oxy-weak solid grain fuel element) is going to beat the F-35 acceleration to pole boost Mach, even when the F-35A is only off by 8 seconds. Because total flyout time as a function of CLOSURE is better than self-impalement of velocity vector on a forced entry to the other guy's WEZ detection threshold when your 'next best shot' is a 2,000ft GAU-22. If you want to talk about absurd fuel reserve issues, talk about trying to penetrate a 2+2 (J-10) or 6+2 (J-20) MRM/SRM threat condition when you only have 90 Raptors at the coalface and all of your SEAD assets ran out of gas 200nm back.
What I am saying here is of course that the F-35 is never going to be rateable for performance as a 'clean vs. dirty' (5 vs. 4) gen airframe but rather will have to adopt both NGJ and EWP to survive any real, near peer, threat environment.
What this will do to drag and RCS measurements is unknowable, though certainly the ability to launch with two outboard pylons carrying a total of 4 AMRAAM class missiles and 8 GBU-53 is going to present less of a headache than the equivalent loadout on naked rails and racks.
Yet even then, you will need to acknowledge the further splitting of your mission loadout between the required shots (using a 7" diameter AMRAAM motor+autopilot combination to perform SHARK level DEAD) need to blow holes in the SAM site coverage in achieving the necessary high/low/direct/off-axis standoff obliquity necessary for glide munition BRLs to time out over other OCA targets like airbases.
The principle flaw in the F-35 design which will drive this approach is the B model STOVL module which effectively took away the centerfuselage as a wideXshallow missile bay with mix equivalents to the F-22 and stuck the user services with deepXnarrow JDAM wells instead. The J-31 bay setup is likely what the F-35 should have looked like if the F-35B had been decoupled from the program once the concurrent technogy development risks became clear (GAO warned of this in 1997).
Still, if you accept that the F-35 is going to be just like the F-16C.50 with more gas and encapsulated vice internal weapons, it may be possible to 'make do', at least in the near term before F/A-XX, with a potential 6+16 or 10+8 roll back by fires mission capability.
It will _not_ be possible to do so if egotism as the fear of admitting mistakes leads people to continue to insist that the F-35 is a successful platform because it is a clean-stealth performance driven one.
For it to be useful will require that it be neither dragless nor particularly LO.
That is a LOT of techno-babble for one post!
It reads like someone ran an APA article through a google translator into Malay and then back into English.
Let me see if I can summarize the points from above:
1. Fighter pilots don't dare speak the truth. They all hate the F-35 but can't say so. When they go " supersprint lunging deep in enemy territory" they want lots of missiles because they will be badly out-numbered, the enemies will have every advantage, etc etc.
2. AIM-120D, even with optimistic assumptions about a bigger motor, isn't better than a PL-12, and will of course be crushed by the "PL-21" sooper dooper Chinese Meteor that will no doubt take all the best features of Meteor, and improve them dramatically. (Meaning that an F-35 with actual Meteors in its bays will always lose, so don't even bring it up. )
3. Add to the above "missile traps from S-300s," which apparently proves something about the F-35's design philosophy. (The F-22 meanwhile is immune to "missile traps" because like the XB-70 it simply flies too high and fast.)
4. Badguys with super missiles will beat the F-35. Their missiles are too fast and the F-35 is too slow.
5. Imagine fighting skies full of Chinese 5th generation fighters with only 90 Raptors and some totally useless F-35s that don't have super missiles. It is hopeless. The Chinese will win because their stealth, missiles, sensors, etc are better. Their planes are also faster more numerous and painted black making them hard to see and scary.
6. Imagine the above, only at night. Remember, their planes are painted black.
7. All F-35s will fly around with stand-off jamming pods for some reason. This will make them slower and less stealthy. It will also have to carry external weapons pods "to survive." The Chinese won't need to do either of these things.
8. The F-35B wrecked the F-35. If not for the B the F-35 would be the J-31, which is clearly an awesome plane. We haven't heard about a single problem with the J-31 while the F-35 has lots of problems. The J-31 is painted black.
9. It might be possible to make-do with the F-35 until the F/A-XX arrives to save us, but only if we all admit the F-35 sucks and self flagellate with copies of APA's latest "notice to airmen."
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
Holy thread revival batman!
Choose Crews
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 868
- Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
- Location: Texas
galoot wrote:SR,
Gas is good. But if the F-15s had been forced to fight over Iraq or Jordan on the way back, they would have _only won_ if they had resolved all combats at BVR. This is the principle vulnerability of the F-35 as well and it is one which will drive the 'Gorilla Strike Package' sizing as tanker gas pass through predicted carriage of netcentrically coordinated self defense weapons.
Which is where the whole argument of nekkidness vs. fueledness comes to a crashing halt in real world terms of beating back a principle S2A threat with...2 AMRAAMs.
....BLAH....BLAH......BLAH......(ad nauseum)
It will _not_ be possible to do so if egotism as the fear of admitting mistakes leads people to continue to insist that the F-35 is a successful platform because it is a clean-stealth performance driven one.
For it to be useful will require that it be neither dragless nor particularly LO.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Madams and Monsieurs, Children of all ages....May I introduce to you (drum roll) "Kurt Plummer!" .
Though the 'galoot' handle is a mere abbreviation of his latest web persona aka "lop_eared_galoot" (which more than once, in a mad rush to spleen-vent he has logged in to websites as 'Kurt Plummer' and then, after being called out by name in a thread reply, quickly reverts to his 'galoot' alter ego).
All you need to know: He reads much, understands little, and can synthesize zero, zilch, nada. Oh...and he builds plastic models.
All of which is quite alright, as long as you don't try to pretend you actually 'know' anything by telling people who do know something that they don't know anything and are absolutely convinced your rantings vanquished an entire thread of people when you actually leave them scratching their heads at most.
Signature or no, Like most people, I would recognize Kurt's...ahem...'writing style' anywhere, having taken him to task only recently here: http://breakingdefense.com/2013/05/01/w ... ey-matter/
But the important thing is the Great Mystery of "Zone Five" (http://zone-five.net/showthread.php?t=5205) has been solved! Perhaps they should be notified?
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 08:04
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009/05 ... t-plummer/
Ah, I get it.
Ah, I get it.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
I've received long winded PMs from him as well... in forums where he has not made a single post. Hilarious that EPL thinks he is some kind of nutty genius, doe not surprise me at all that he envies him.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1066
- Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23
It will _not_ be possible to do so if egotism as the fear of admitting mistakes leads people to continue to insist that the F-35 is a successful platform because it is a clean-stealth performance driven one.
For it to be useful will require that it be neither dragless nor particularly LO.
Hi Kurt!
Can you give us a 2000 word treatise on the term 'walter mitty'?
It is your only true area of expertise afterall...
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1066
- Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23
XanderCrews wrote:I've received long winded PMs from him as well... in forums where he has not made a single post. Hilarious that EPL thinks he is some kind of nutty genius, doe not surprise me at all that he envies him.
Kurt and Eric belong together, in a fantasy world of their own devising where evrything the West does sucks and the imaginary 'yellow hordes' rule all...
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 658
- Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
- Location: Brisbane, Australia
If you want a laugh have a look at the rumblings here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... highlight=
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 850
- Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
- Location: Australia
"Galoot" is hilarious! His gibberish made my day. I never knew F35 pilots will be flying into combat with 2 long spears!!!! LMFAO....seriously though the quality of the threads on F16.net is taking a beating from these type of clowns.
-
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 7505
- Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
mk82 wrote:"Galoot" is hilarious! His gibberish made my day. I never knew F35 pilots will be flying into combat with 2 long spears!!!! LMFAO.
On the only two AMRAAM note... Ok I probably shouldn't even tell you this. But since we are all friends here on F-16.net I feel I can share some information that no one else really knows.
Combat aircraft can vary the wdeapon loadout to better suit the mission.
That is classified information I just shared. That is not a basic fact You can just learn anywhere. Theoritically some JSFs could carry nothing but AMRAAMs while others carry AMRAAMs and bombs. One could even carry 3 or 4 AMRAAMS and a single bomb if needed. Please don't tell anyone else, this isn't something you can just see in a brochure, or video. its tippy top secret.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests