| Author |
Message |
|
arkadyrenko
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 05:02 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Sep 19, 2011 - 08:40 PM
Posts: 304
Status: Offline
|
The correct argument is the all don't have enough range, but the F-35 is a step in the right direction. Mummy, I believe that the CSBA placed the carrier further offshore, in a place that was clearly out of the range of shore launched ASCMs.
About the bomber, the USAF / USN do need a bomber, the USAF is building one and the USN thinks it has one in the UCAV. The problem then becomes: do they need an escort for those bombers? ADVENT should help the F-35, maybe some form of bigger delta wing as well. I don't know how many fighter upgrade programs have radically increased the range of the fighters. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 6:03 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 06:54 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| They could always finish dev on JSOW-ER and add 300nm to the strike range. |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
hcobb
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 07:20 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 27, 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posts: 222
Location: North California
Status: Offline
|
If you're just going to use stand off weapons you might as well use a Buff.
The F-35's advantage is that it brings advanced sensors over the target to chase things down.
And why wouldn't you assume that the Chinese will sell their best stuff to Iran in exchange for black market liquid black gold? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 07:36 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
The buff could not make it into (or near Iran) in order to launch standoff weapons that would reach the farthest corners (if needed).
Nice try though. |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
hcobb
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 07:46 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jul 27, 2009 - 04:31 PM
Posts: 222
Location: North California
Status: Offline
|
AGM-86C: classified (nominal 680 miles, 1,100 km)
That's an entire Baby Seal's worth of range, just in the missile. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
SpudmanWP
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 08:34 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K

Joined: Oct 12, 2006 - 08:18 PM
Posts: 4347
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
AGM-68C = easily defeated by modern point-defense IADS systems.
Nice try though. |
_________________ "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 08:45 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1615
Status: Offline
|
|
hcobb wrote:
AGM-86C: classified (nominal 680 miles, 1,100 km)
That's an entire Baby Seal's worth of range, just in the missile.
Yo, Screeching Baby Troll (SBT for short ), an AGM-86C costs a bit more than a JDAM. And they aren't making anymore of them. |
_________________ "There I was. . ."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shingen
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 08:49 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 03:27 AM
Posts: 570
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
Remember that the F-35 can't fit much into its bays so the "cool" weaponry is likely to be launched by UAV with the F-35 going into harm's way to get the data to target the weapons. An updated F-35 might see an internal tank in the bays and see the F-35 carrying a couple BVR or HARM type missiles. The F-35 will fly around gathering data, armed for self-defense, and putting data into the picture so that weapons can be targeted.
There's an issue with the cost of long range weapons like AGM-86. What's needed is something VLO with big bays and long range.
I think more knowledge of network (picture) centric warfare needs to get into these F-35 threads. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 09:09 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1615
Status: Offline
|
|
shingen wrote:
Remember that the F-35 can't fit much into its bays so the "cool" weaponry is likely to be launched by UAV
What can a UAV launch that an F-35 can't fit in it's bays? |
_________________ "There I was. . ."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shingen
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 09:14 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 03:27 AM
Posts: 570
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
| The F-35's only ALCM is the Norwegian NSM/JSM. Any prospective striker would need to carry ALCMs and small bunker busters to really round out USAF capability with all VLO munitions delivery. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 09:43 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2208
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
SpudmanWP wrote:
The buff could not make it into (or near Iran) in order to launch standoff weapons that would reach the farthest corners (if needed).
Nice try though.
The USAF Buffs can hit anything anywhere on the globe if tasked.
Quote:
The first combat sortie of Desert Storm was launched from Barksdale, when seven B-52Gs flew a 35-hour mission - the longest combat sortie in history at that time - to fire a barrage of conventional air-launched cruise missiles against Iraq.
It does appear, "reaching the farthest corners" of the earth, is why they were built.
TEG |
_________________ [Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
 |
|
shingen
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 09:48 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 03:27 AM
Posts: 570
Location: California
Status: Offline
|
TEG,
Always wanted to ask this, it's a bit of a divergence from the thread but, if you could re-engine the B-52, which engine would you pick and why? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
southernphantom
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 10:39 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Aug 06, 2011 - 06:18 PM
Posts: 749
Location: Somewhere in Dixie
Status: Offline
|
Seriously, hcobb. You obviously hate BOTH the F-22 and F-35. Pray tell what you'd like the see the USAF/USN flying in 15 years??
(My personal picture sees F-22s with maybe 100-200 new-production, ~1200 F-35s, 200 F-15Es, and a manned NGAD in flight testing, just for reference) |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 10:50 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2208
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
shingen wrote:
TEG,
Always wanted to ask this, it's a bit of a divergence from the thread but, if you could re-engine the B-52, which engine would you pick and why?
Start a thread in the Technology forum and we'll explore that further...
TEG |
_________________ [Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sferrin
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2012 - 11:27 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Jul 22, 2005 - 04:23 AM
Posts: 1615
Status: Offline
|
|
shingen wrote:
The F-35's only ALCM is the Norwegian NSM/JSM. Any prospective striker would need to carry ALCMs and small bunker busters to really round out USAF capability with all VLO munitions delivery.
F-35s can carry 2000lb JDAMs internally as well as JSOW. |
_________________ "There I was. . ."
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|