Forum: Program and politics

Wow, back with the "Blk 3" does not have 4 internal AMRAAMs" BS again I see... Without supporting docs or quotes of course.

F-16.net Sponsor

slowman2 wrote:

The two AMRAAMs it carries are for self-defense only to buy time for escape, not to shoot down Flankers.

Source?

[quote="slowman2"]

Quote:

F-35 was never meant for an A2A combat. The two AMRAAMs it carries are for self-defense only to buy time for escape, not to shoot down Flankers.

Never meant for an A2A combat .... So, never has been developed as a multi role!?

With this in mind ... the US Navy, Marines without AA (jet) capacity and the US Airforce with only F22's?

Not only that, Airforces like Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands without AA capacity at all. Sounds a bit strange doesn't it ...
Bad luck for the IAF ...Would Israel really been have that stupid?

m wrote:

slowman2 wrote:

F-35 was never meant for an A2A combat. The two AMRAAMs it carries are for self-defense only to buy time for escape, not to shoot down Flankers.

Never meant for an A2A combat .... So, never has been developed as a multi role!?

With this in mind ... the US Navy, Marines without AA (jet) capacity and the US Airforce with only F22's?

Not only that, Airforces like Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands without AA capacity at all. Sounds a bit strange doesn't it ...
Bad luck for the IAF ...Would Israel really been have that stupid?

The Super Hornet will retain their maritime air superiority role once the F-35 enters service - which are replacing legacy Hornets in naval service. While the multirole F-35 has a robust BVR A-A capability, they seem to be optimized for the penetrating /day one strike role. When the E/Fs retire in the 2030's, the future NGAD takes over the MAS role, and hopefully deep strike as well.

Yea right.. let's see how long the F-18E/F remains as the primary A2A role once the F-35C starts playing with F-18E/Fs in their own Day-2-Day training.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Yea right.. let's see how long the F-18E/F remains as the primary A2A role once the F-35C starts playing with F-18E/Fs in their own Day-2-Day training.

Or the fact that the F/A-18E fleet will be about 15 years old at that point and face restrictions on their performance.

However are there even specialized A2A squadrons or taskings anymore? I was under the impression that squadron training/roles is pretty consistent among the entire fleet. Introducing another multi-role aircraft wouldn't change that. Sure F/A-18E/Fs would still undertake A2A, but that's because they haven't been replaced by F-35Cs.

m wrote:

Never meant for an A2A combat .... So, never has been developed as a multi role!?

Just because the F-35 can fire AMRAAM doesn't meant it is good at killing the Flanker. Harriers can fire AMRAAMs but no sane air commander would send out his Harriers against incoming Flankers. For strike platforms like F-35 and Harriers, AMRAAMs are defensive weapons intended to buy an escape time.

Quote:

With this in mind ... the US Navy, Marines without AA (jet) capacity and the US Airforce with only F22's?

USAF : Operates F-22 and F-15Cs as A2A platforms.
USN : Operates Super Hornet as the primary A2A platform.
USMC : Operates under the air-cover of US Navy when landing.

Quote:

Not only that, Airforces like Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands without AA capacity at all. Sounds a bit strange doesn't it ...

All these with the exception of Australia are NATO members with no external security threat. Australia is too far away from China to need anything substantial. The only major security threat that Australia faces is Indonesia.

This is where Japan and Korea's problems lie. Unlike these NATO members with no real security threats, Japan and Korea are right next to China. Japan additionally faces PAK-FAs based in Russian Far East.(The Russian airforce is not a problem for Korea)

Quote:

Bad luck for the IAF ...Would Israel really been have that stupid?

Israel is not paying for its F-35s(Paid for by the US taxpayers).

Again with no supporting documentation?

SpudmanWP wrote:

Again with no supporting documentation?

Asking documentation for this is like asking documentation to prove that the Sun is yellow. It is something that you should be ashamed of not knowing.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 05868.html

Quote:

U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin will face a penalty unless it formally offers an apology for misleading statements over Korea’s plan to purchase fighter jets for 8.29 trillion won ($7.3 billion), multiple sources said Tuesday.

Senior officials at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said that Lockheed Martin has undermined the credibility of the government’s plan to purchase 60 advanced jets in a fair international competition.

Publicly apologize or get kicked out of the contest, doesn't sound like a favorite contender. Lockheed Martin is the least liked contender by DAPA, the exact opposite of what people here falsely believe. It is no accident that the F-35 is the only technically disqualified jet of four; it was intentional.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Yea right.. let's see how long the F-18E/F remains as the primary A2A role once the F-35C starts playing with F-18E/Fs in their own Day-2-Day training.

That will be interesting when 2 dissimilar assets mix it up with similar radar and IR kit.

@Slowman:

I can dig up plenty of docs and photos that show the sun is yellow (nice try though).

I can also show quotes that say the F-35 will have 4 internal AAMs at IOC.

btw, I notice that you do not provide any info on what the info was that LM allegedly "mislead" South Korea over.

@maus92:

The Radar and IR (EOTS and EODAS) are a generation beyond (or don't exist) what is on the F-18E. It will be a bloodbath.

SpudmanWP wrote:

@maus92:

The Radar and IR (EOTS and EODAS) are a generation beyond (or don't exist) what is on the F-18E. It will be a bloodbath.

Tell that to Raytheon and Boeing. When the fight comes, it will be interesting.

Raytheon makes NO claim of LPI capabilities in the ballpark of what the APG-77/81 has.

The EOTS is an advancement of the SniperXR and as being a permanent part of the F-35 will provide a more stable platform than a pod mounted solution (if the F-18 even gets the IRST pod). btw, What will that center-line tank do to the SH's flight performance?

As far as EODAS goes, the SH does not even have a IR MAWS, so no contest there.

Make it a night intercept and the F-35 would completely own WVR.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Raytheon makes NO claim of LPI capabilities in the ballpark of what the APG-77/81 has.

The EOTS is an advancement of the SniperXR and as being a permanent part of the F-35 will provide a more stable platform than a pod mounted solution (if the F-18 even gets the IRST pod). btw, What will that center-line tank do to the SH's flight performance?

As far as EODAS goes, the SH does not even have a IR MAWS, so no contest there.

Make it a night intercept and the F-35 would completely own WVR.

Of course, APG-79 is a stagnant program - nope, in fact, it is the basis for RACR. Plus it's never been upgraded. Boeing and its subcontractor Lockheed Martin, received Milestone B in July 2011 to proceed with development of its proven IRST system, and funding is in place in the navy's budget for the next few years, so it's extremely likely it will be fleeted before F-35C IOC - that and DTS, but I digress...

Did I mention F-35 has yet to regain Milestone B?

MAWS smalz - does F-35 have ALQ-214 and ALE-50/55? Nope.

SpudmanWP wrote:

@Slowman:

I can dig up plenty of docs and photos that show the sun is yellow (nice try though).

But not a picture of the AMRAAM mounted in the A2G station.

Quote:

btw, I notice that you do not provide any info on what the info was that LM allegedly "mislead" South Korea over.

It's in the following sentences.

Quote:

The company has been cornered over a report by Dusty Ricketts of the Northwest Florida Daily News that claimed Stephen O’Bryan, vice president of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program integration, told reporters in early February that Korea had already agreed to purchase F-35 jets.

Quote:

Senior DAPA official said the agency sent a letter of complaint to Lockheed Martin on Feb. 15 regarding Korea’s next-generation fighter acquisition bidding in which Boeing and EADS are also participating, but it has yet to receive any response.

They warned that the more Lockheed Martin postpones making a formal public apology, the more it will have to lose.

“If Lockheed Martin hesitates to respond to the South Korean government’s call to make a formal apology, possibly in an attempt to save face, it will suffer a harsher penalty for its role in misleading the public,” a senior DAPA official said.

Forum: Program and politics

Will South Korea reject the F-35 ?