Forum: Program and politics

Meeting the Korean Defense Challenge: The View from 7th Air Force 23 July 2012

http://www.sldinfo.com/meeting-the-kore ... air-force/

"In an interview this month with Lt. General Jan-Marc Jouas, Second Line of Defense had a chance to discuss the challenges of defense in the Korean Peninsula. This area remains a key driver for U.S. forces in the Pacific, and any consideration of how to strengthen alliances in the Pacific must start with South Korea. This is especially important given the coming transfer of command within South Korea which will elevate the South Korean role....

...SLD: How will the coming of F-35s to South Korea affect the template?

LT. GENERAL JOUAS: U.S. overseas basing decisions are not yet determined; however, any deployment of F-35s to the Korean peninsula will clearly modify the template, including the Marine Corps F-35B.

The Seventh Air Force relationship with the Marine Corps is the best I’ve ever seen. Their aircraft will be dedicated to the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) at some point, but before then, they will be used as part of our air campaign to the greatest effect that we can deliver.

The F-35A, B, and C will give us greater flexibility, and greater options in terms of where and how we can operate.

We will integrate the F-35 with F-16s, F-15Ks, F-15Es, F-22s, and other airplanes in a way that will enhance and increase everybody’s capability, much in the same way that we currently see the F-22 and the F-15 integrating and increasing their capabilities. Our targeting, and the effects that we will seek, will be adjusted by the fact that we have F-35s.

SLD: Lt General Deptula often makes the point that the F-22 and the F-35 is not really an F but is an ISR platform in a new way. How do you look at these developments?..."

Best to read the entire article at URL above.

F-16.net Sponsor

jeffb wrote:

HB_Pencil wrote:

This raises another point, one must consider how big the logistical trail will be for operating a large twin, versus a smaller single.

Small correction: an empty F-35 is heavier that an empty F-15 so it's actually a large twin vs an even larger single.

Uh, isn't the empty weight of an F-35 27,000lbs and the F-15E 31,000? And that doesn't include the latter's need to load external tanks pylons to carry ordinance or reach its range specs?

jeffb wrote:

The F-35 has been designed to allow quick and easy replacement of equipment modules, this is most likely what leads to the (projected) 98% mission capability rate. That said, the modules don't magically fix themselves once they come off the plane so I'd question whether it will actually be 'easier to repair' or just 'easier to get back in the air' once they develop a problem. Assuming of course that the your equipment module supply line can keep up. Where will they be repairing the modules? Will that happen locally or do they need to send them back to the depot?

That's the devil in the details. The F-35's support system being set up as a two level approach, with much of the component repair being pushed to the depot.

The efficacy of this system depends on a number of factors; location of the depot, the complexity of the part, number of spares on hand, ect. Certainly in the general war scenario outlined above "easier to get back into the air" is a more pressing concern. Facing that scenario, a state like Korea probably would need to invest in a greater number of spares held at the front lines in order to avoid serious disruptions of their maintenance operations. Consolidating it to a two level system certainly has its advantages and disadvantages.

The US military has considered the F-35's logistical footprint and its ability to generate sorties, as these are part of the KPP. Being able to easily transport the F-35's components has always been a key interest of individuals involved (like the ability to carry the F135 in the Navy's transport aircraft.)

hb_pencil wrote:

Uh, isn't the empty weight of an F-35 27,000lbs and the F-15E 31,000? And that doesn't include the latter's need to load external tanks pylons to carry ordinance or reach its range specs?

I used to do that, include "facts" in debate with JeffB, but it is blindingly obvious that he doesn't really care for facts and would rather just make (easily located) facts and figures up from thin air to support "his" arguments...

Conan wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

Uh, isn't the empty weight of an F-35 27,000lbs and the F-15E 31,000? And that doesn't include the latter's need to load external tanks pylons to carry ordinance or reach its range specs?

I used to do that, include "facts" in debate with JeffB, but it is blindingly obvious that he doesn't really care for facts and would rather just make (easily located) facts and figures up from thin air to support "his" arguments...

Conan, seriously?

F-15C empty weight 28000lbs.
F-15E empty weight 31700lbs.

I did mean the F-15C, mia culpa. I imagined that you were speaking of the F-35A which as you can see from the diagram above is 29036lbs. In the appendix of the QLR (A-28 ) there's a weight history chart for the F-35A which had its weight in Oct 2011 as 29161lbs. Last time it was even close to 27000 was back in '04.

So technically, an empty F-35A is heavier than an empty F-15C and the B and C variants are heavier than an empty F-15E.

Edit: CV version empty weight 34586lbs 10/10/2011 ( A-29 ). Phew.

For good reason the F-35C is heavier empty, larger wing, beefed up structure and undercarriage so no PHEW required perhaps. No date on the weight chart so here is a dated LM weight/stats chart dated 12 June 2012:

https://ex.democracydata.com/243F8CB0E1 ... cc798e.pdf

Damn. Spent half-an-hour looking for something recent and wound up back at the Ahern report. And even those newer numbers are dodgy Spazsinbad because the propulsion figures are low (well lower than we've heard elsewhere).

This is the thing that gets me though, who writes up these fact sheets? Who tells them that the weight this month is 34800lbs? Why is the 32072lbs number wrong anyway? Did they plan to use material A in some particular part, discover that A wouldn't work for some reason and that the only alternate was to use lead?

I thought this was supposed to be a science. WTF

'jeffb' agree - it is frustrating but if you had indicated where your figures came from initially that would help a lot. There are many graphics about weight or whatever from many, many PPT briefings now over the years.

Also there has been a discusion about 'weight' and what the entails on this forum. Is the empty weight completely empty or 'wet weight' that includes oil, hydraulics or whatnots? There are official definitions but whatever. NATOPS are always good in this respect - because weight is important to get back with the max. landing weight if feasible - and computers/pilots will calculate it down to the last pound if necessary.

________________

STROLL Down this page for some weighty shenanigans:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... pty#221371

I wonder if they want fries with their dessert: "“The Saudis have about 74 state-of-the-art jet fighters sitting in the desserts of the country rusting away. They’ve never been flown and they’ve just done another 60 billion dollar deal with the US. That’s just to cement their political and military alliance.” What aircraft are these? Do the Saudis have an AMARC equivalent? Anyway... Surprise Surprise (I only read headlines).... Very Happy

[Special feature] History suggests U.S. may be pressuring South Korea on F-35 deal Jul.29,2012
&
South Korea may be making a mistake in purchasing flawed, untested plane By Stuart Smallwood

"Global arms trade analysts say South Korea and other countries may be considering the increasingly-troubled Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter F-35 due to heavy political pressure from the United States...."

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ ... 44679.html

YANKEE GO HOME! Very Happy

One for the CANUKs maybe: "Stuart Smallwood is a journalism graduate from the University of King’s College in Canada and an Asian Studies MA candidate in Seoul"

Only bother going to read it if interested in pure speculation.

If performance and costs were the ONLY determining factors in fighter sales and procurement, every major air force in the free world would be flying a mix of F-22s and JAS-39s by now.

Of course, if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

[Viewpoint] Korea’s next-generation fighter By Michael Green 13 Aug 2012
"Decisions on top-end fighter aircraft send very strong signals about how serious a nation is regarding its national defense and alliance relationships."

http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/ ... id=2957775

Last Paragraph: "...One way to think about this decision is to imagine what the Rokaf will look like in 10 or 20 years. Will it be flying a fighter that is second to none in the region, interoperable with the United States, and cost-effective to sustain and operate in its middle age? This is no small decision."

An interesting overview at the URL.

Just buy the F-35 to keep up with the Tanakas and build an indigenous Gen 4+ in greater numbers to complement it and for the export market.

spazsinbad wrote:

YANKEE GO HOME! Very Happy

Amy Chua wrote a book a few years back, World on Fire, about simmering tensions and resentments in societies. In an interview I saw with her, she discussed anti-Americanism in that context. She said all over the world the refrain was the same, Yankee Go Home! But take me with you!! Please! Razz

It's a complicated world out there.

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.

Are you serious?? A delusional dictator does not justify the killing of millions who can hardly feed themselves let alone read this now. Get real man. North Korea is in no position to do anything but posture and bluff. And the people suffer for it sadly.

IF we were to resort to nukes, I can assure you, that we wouldn't use 25 300kt warheads.

Forum: Program and politics

Korea threatens to disqualify F-35