Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

AUSA and others feel the F-22 in many respects and especially for stealth is about the best out there. However in many Top 10 lists it's easily in the Top 5. It should be noted that the Russians pretty much round out the rest of the Top 5 in combat maneuverability etc., which I fully can appreciate going back to the MiG-29. However the PAK-FA/T-50 appears from a stealth point of view to not be near as good as earlier reported, even the below is suggesting the same not surprised as the F-35 has fallen a little in this category as well. Bottom-line the F-22 will probably remain the only true 5th Gen fighter for many years to come. Next is one with a different take on the Top 10 list...
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/top_10_fighter_aircraft.htm
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/sukhoi_pak_fa.htm

We had a question I believe in the British OOB/or APC Threads on transport capability...
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/boeing_globemaster_III.htm
You can carry one Warrior. The C-17 has a 48.3 ton cargo limit. Therefore from a cost point of view and the obvious risk factors it's unlikely to be used for that purpose.

The West has only one cargo plane to carry that out and it's the C-5A. The original C-5 can hold 2 x M1A1 tanks/16 3/4 ton trucks or 10 LAV-25 vehicles.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/lockheed_c_5_galaxy.htm

Now the real reason I'm here...Congratulations to the CORPS...yes they are the first ones to deploy the APKWS II on a fixed wing aircraft the venerable AV-8B Harrier II (And I take this moment to thank our friends "across the pond" for giving us such a GREAT DEAL on their fully updated almost 100 million dollars spent on the GR.7/9 Harriers. :rolleyes:). The USAF won't be far behind as it ran coordinated tests with, can you guess (?), you're right the A-10 WARTHOG. They had some issues with the jets that entailed a modified housing/FIXED. The USAF F-16 and USN F/A-18E/F were also used in testing. I have no data on the status with those jets.
http://www.janes.com/article/59175/apkws-ii-deployed-on-usmc-harriers

Time to "wind down" from work. Have a great day!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Only around 8 months earlier then I had them appearing in the OOB. Rather refreshing to have something deployed early rather then late or not at all.

Also:
http://defense-update.com/20160320_apkws-2.html

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I was reading some of my "newspapers" when I came across the below article. In this case concerning the UK's TYPHOON fighter-bomber. I have openly stated that any aircraft submitted by me will have it's proper "noun name" given vice say F-4/or PHANTOM. Sub typing is important because they represent improved capabilities and progression in technologies and weapons at different times through an aircraft's "lifetime" and makes it easier to apply them to units in the game for instance again using the F-4, there were huge differences from the F-4A > F-4E (The most prolific model of the type.) for instance the "A" wasn't a gun carrier, the "C" didn't have them until they mounted the SUU-16 gun pods which caused serious "drag" issues which wouldn't be addressed until the "E" came along and mounted the internal General Electric Vulcan (M61A) 20 mm, six-barrel, rotary-cannon with 639 rounds. That's just a gun issue and obviously doesn't even touch any other ones that would effect game play such as EW, Vision, Weapons etc. etc.

So back to the article as the above was a "demonstration", if you keep up in the flying world you know the EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON is a highly advanced fighter-bomber it is currently developed up to the TRANCHE 3. The affect to the UK OOB specifically (And I'm afraid to look at the other countries involved.) concerning UNIT 509 EF-2000 is...

1. Name change to TYPHOON TRANCHE 1 or simply TYPHOON T1 as the T# designation is a widely excepted "term" if you will in the literature.

2. A decision will need to be made to " terminate" the TYPHOON T1 with a change to the end date based on this article as the AM/RAF is about to pull the T1 from service as a fighter-bomber to strictly in the role of an air defense only fighter. I believe we should do this when the time comes which seems to be in the not too distant future as I'll have the other types submitted as discussed below.

3. ADD the other two types with the improvements upon each one even if represented by only one game appropriate unit. This will allow me/us to address any advances in technologies and weapons that would improve game play to the type as time moves towards the games calendar end. The UK's TYPHOON T1-T3 will be flying until 2040.
http://www.janes.com/article/59243/raf-to-field-retained-tranche-1-typhoons-as-stand-alone-air-defence-force
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Typhoon.html

A note about AUSA they are one of the most respected aircraft sites on the web/or publication. They are scientific in their approach and were one of the first to publicly "call out" the capabilities or lack there of the F-35. If interested in jets and air defense systems this is a good place to start. The last update for all articles is shown between the tabs at the top of the page.

As I've noted in this thread before over the history of this game "typing" of armor has been to some degree been handled better than with aircraft. I'm not saying we have a problem to lose sleep over but, some of my biggest issues in dealing with advances as I've noted above, have come from the aircraft side of the house in trying to match the improvements to the proper aircraft where sometimes my best clue comes from the years that aircraft has been submitted for in the game. This to me is a workload reduction issue I think all can benefit from in the long run.

I would guess as far as EW is concerned for fighter-bomber/fighters that the F-22 sets the high water mark in the game? Just trying to define that number so I have a mental "slide rule" to work from. Thanks!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

I am confused by this -probably my fault- all I hear from the RAF types is making Typhoon a better Fighter Bomber, since she is already a good air superiority fighter (Indeed the RAF got some flak for getting an aircraft that might win a new battle of Britain, while ditching Royal Navy FAA Sea Harrier 2 and then 'joint' Harriers, all be it the AV8b was crap at air to air)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm not sure of the confusion, I'm merely pointing an aircraft's progression is tied into technological advances across the board to include avionics (Non factor in our game.), electronics (EW, Vision) and weapons. The RAF has not let you down many of the TYPHOON T2/T3 improvements dealt specifically with it's fighter-bomber capabilities some were weapons and others sensor driven (Which means software updates etc. etc.). What I really didn't pay attention to is it's SEAD role it appears to be highly capable of that mission as well. Because I won't pay ADOBE for certain services, I can't extract the data I wanted off their (Eurofighter) PDF download of technical data. However I found the same charts on line for the TYPHOON's various weapons configurations. The comparison picture of the side by side weapons configurations of the TYPHOON and RAFALE are from a different source but very useful none the less.

14191 14187

14188 14189

14190

The actual picture is of a TYPHOON T1. Again do note the SEAD configuration.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I missed this initially as I looked for it under TYPHOON and not EUROFIGHTER..., so these guys are pretty good and it discusses the "progression" issue I brought in my last 2 posts. The following is taken from ref. 1 below..."The contract for tranche 2 phase 1 enhancement (P1E) was placed in March 2007. This includes the integration of Raytheon Paveway IV 500lb and Enhanced Paveway EGBU-16 1,000lb guided bombs and a new laser designator pod."

So as you can see it covers new weapons and an improved laser targeting system. Except for some work here to get these in, I don't know what more I can offer here concerning this plane.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/eurofighter_typhoon.htm
http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Military-Aircraft/Eurofighter/EF-2000-Typhoon/

I'm off to la la land it was a busy week at the "grind".

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

I note that not everyone likes F35 on here. Understandably enough given its cost, delays, etc.

I used to be a critic of it myself, especially the STOVL F35B for the Royal Navy, being a supporter of putting cats and traps on the two very large new RN carriers and buying Super Hornet and, perhaps, later F35C.

However, sadly, this is not going to happen, although the good news is that the normal, peace time, carrier air group on the carriers will now be 24 -rather than the original rather pathetic 12- F35B...

Why did I change my mind about F35? Simple really, having worked hard for years to make sure my boy did not follow family tradition and join the Army -too many dead soldiers in wars we did not win, and never had a plan to win, in Iraq and Afghan for my taste- he decided to try for a Commission after University in the Royal Navy, Fleet Air Arm. Oh the plans of mice and men...

Anyway to bring this back on topic, F35 seems just as easy as any other aircraft for SAMs to destroy in the game, despite its (frontal ark) stealth. Is that the case?

[Imp]

I note that not everyone likes F35 on here.
Anyway to bring this back on topic, F35 seems just as easy as any other aircraft for SAMs to destroy in the game, despite its (frontal ark) stealth. Is that the case?

Probably better asked in a separate thread but game terms defence wise its a standard decent modern ground attack plane similar to British Typhoon, JSF
EW of 7-10 & size of 4-5 are the norm for the good stuff.
So yes its in the same ballpark its not a F22 that's in a different league entirely with its high EW

Its main problem is its slow so fairly vulnerable to AAA guns as they get to fire more shots at it.

[whdonnelly]

The Afghans are starting to use the Super Tocano with laser guided Paveway and Hellfire missile among other options. So far it's been a great option against an enemy without much air defense.

[Suhiir]

Its main problem is its slow so fairly vulnerable to AAA guns as they get to fire more shots at it.
It's the classic problem.
Slow aircraft hit ground targets better, fast ones are less vulnerable to AA.

[IronDuke99]

Except on any military board you care to name -let alone any air force board F35 is the greatest thing since sliced bread... Why?

[Suhiir]

It's a good ground attack aircraft. It's not, repeat NOT, intended or designed to be a fighter (that's what the F-22 is for).

Excellent ground attack avionics. Carries an OK bombload internally for full stealth, and has external racks that can carry many tons of bombs/missiles. There are advantages to all three services using basically the same aircraft in terms of maintenance and logistics.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Personally I'll wait for "The Great Shootout" to be conducted early next year between the A-10 and F-35. Funny though that for all the talk about the A-10 and F-35, you're not hearing anything about the F-15E OK I am and they'll be getting an extensive electronics upgrade.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsusaf-to-evaluate-initial-operating-capability-of-f-35a-aircraft-4820474
http://www.janes.com/article/59392/usaf-studies-a-x-requirements
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104499/f-15e-strike-eagle.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii-conventional-takeoff-and-landing-variant.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx

The F-15E is the real winner here based on the fact it can fight it's way into and out of the target area, has a payload of 23klbs, as compared the F-35A at 18klbs and the A-10 at 16klbs. The F-15E during it's career has a shoot down score of 101 kills to 0 losses.
The F-35 will lose it's stealth advantage if it has to carry weapons externally-and wasn't that the point of the whole exercise in it's development? Internally it won't be able to carry a much larger payload than the F-22 in "stealth mode" and for all the "hoop la" why is the USAF being required to find a replacement to the A-10 anyway under the A-X Program?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/28/chuck-hagels-a-10-legacy/

The Congress thus far is not necessarily supporting the USAF decision to look at, at least five "off the shelf' candidates. They are to look into a "ground up" option (And are.) as yet another paradigm shift is occurring with the resurgence of Russia and China. If you watched the news today there was a story about a U.S. Destroyer being buzzed by Russian attack aircraft (Unarmed however of course the ship is armed.) This is the kind of stuff we did to each other during the "Cold War". So I see the possibility of something that'll be a "hybrid" between the F-15E and A-10 based on their combined pluses if designed from the "ground up".

I hope you'll at least look at the chart of the above last ref. the F-35 has been added to a newer version of the same chart and it doesn't fair that well either. It's posted in this Thread already I think around Oct. 2015 time frame. Also only 7 or 8 A-10's have been shot down in combat. The ratio of loss vs. sorties would fall into the 0.000...range.

Operation Desert Storm
-------------------------------


OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.

OA-10A 77-0197
Crashed on landing. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW. Aircraft had been hit by small arms and was attempting a landing at KKMC FOL while in Manual Reversion after loosing all its hydraulics and in extreme weather conditions. On landing the aircraft cart wheeled wingtip over wingtip flipped over on to its back killing the pilot Lt Patrick Olson. There was nothing left of the aircraft. The remains of the aircraft were buried at the FOL.

A-10A 78-0722
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353rd TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Lt James Sweet ejected and made Prisoner of War.

A-10A 79-0130
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353th TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire approx 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Capt Steven Phyllis killed in action. Capt. Steve Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman, 1st Lt. Robert James Sweet.

A-10A 79-0181
Crashed on landing, wheels up, hard stick landing by pilot Capt Rich Biley on 22 Feb 1991.

A-10A 80-0248
Shot down in combat by 'optical AAA' fire 2 Feb 1991 shot down by ground fire or SAM 20 NM SW of Kuwait City, Kuwait. Pilot Capt Richard Dale Storr ejected and captured as POW Released 03/05/91. From 23rd TFW.



Operation Iraqi Freedom
-------------------------------


A-10A (Serial Number : 78-0691) of 124th Wing/190th FS shot down by enemy fire, probably by an Iraqi Roland SAM; pilot survived and was recovered by friendly forces.

I was always behind the F-22 even as controversial as it was at the time and since in the last 3 years or so it's proved it's worth. Maybe the F-35 will prove me wrong but, from what I've been seeing thus far, I'm not ready to support it. Maybe the "shoot out" if done correctly will change my mind. But for now my money is on the A-10 and the more recently possible addition of the F-15E though no final decision on that has been made yet that, that I'm aware of.

Anyway I really need some sleep-I hope you all have a great day!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

This will be interesting I am no plane buff but if the airspace is hot beating the F-15s multirole capabilities is a tall order, I will be very surprised if the F-35 is as capable.
F-15s bugbear is its probably expensive to run but I bet its still the deep penetration plane of choice.
Let the others operate in the "safe zone"

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

From a discussion from early last Fall, I had said that I didn't feel that we were in "The Cold War" again but more like "The Chilly War" dealing with the airspace violations of some European countries by Russian military aircraft. But after this incident with the USS Cook earlier this week in which the CPA was within 75 feet of the bridge, this represents an escalation not seen since the mid 80's early 90's. It would seem we are heading back into "The 2nd Cold War". These over flights are normal but what's not is how close they "buzzed" the Cook. A sneeze at the wrong time at that altitude and speed could've resulted in the loss of life and who knows what political or other issues would've resulted from that. A good call by the C.O. to keep the crew and ship "weapons tight" to prevent an incident. The ROE after the first pass, would've allowed the C.O. to engage if he felt the ship was in imminent danger of attack, this was confirmed by the Secretary of State Thursday morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylONaw4ODuk
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/europe/russia-defends-donald-cook-overflight/index.html

Su-24 at CPA...
14199

It'll be interesting to see what the response from the Russians will be in about four to six weeks, when we have over 13K troops in Poland to conduct our largest exercise in Europe since the Cold War ended.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

It's a good ground attack aircraft. It's not, repeat NOT, intended or designed to be a fighter (that's what the F-22 is for).

Excellent ground attack avionics. Carries an OK bombload internally for full stealth, and has external racks that can carry many tons of bombs/missiles. There are advantages to all three services using basically the same aircraft in terms of maintenance and logistics.

Fair enough for the US but in the British Royal Navy F35B will have to do fleet air defence, since it will be the Fleet Air Arms only fast jet. Certainly sometimes the fleet can use land based air cover and, again sometimes Allies can help, but, as history proves, sometimes the RN will have to rely on its own carrier based aircraft...

[Suhiir]

Fair enough for the US but in the British Royal Navy F35B will have to do fleet air defence, since it will be the Fleet Air Arms only fast jet. Certainly sometimes the fleet can use land based air cover and, again sometimes Allies can help, but, as history proves, sometimes the RN will have to rely on its own carrier based aircraft...
The problem is that for whatever reason (presumably economic) the RN isn't building/operating any full size fleet carriers. When all you've got is what are essentially escort carriers with a small aircraft complement it's not really reasonable to expect that air complement to be great at anything since by necessity they have to be multi-role.

[IronDuke99]

Fair enough for the US but in the British Royal Navy F35B will have to do fleet air defence, since it will be the Fleet Air Arms only fast jet. Certainly sometimes the fleet can use land based air cover and, again sometimes Allies can help, but, as history proves, sometimes the RN will have to rely on its own carrier based aircraft...
The problem is that for whatever reason (presumably economic) the RN isn't building/operating any full size fleet carriers. When all you've got is what are essentially escort carriers with a small aircraft complement it's not really reasonable to expect that air complement to be great at anything since by necessity they have to be multi-role.

Actually the two new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers are the second largest Carriers in the world after the USN carriers. Over 70,000 tons, 920 feet long and and a flight deck beam of 230ft. They will be able to carry up to about 55 aircraft. They are roughly three times the size of the Invincible class they replace.

http://www.queenelizabethcruises.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/UK-aircraft-carriers-size-comparison.jpg

[Suhiir]

Guess I misread something when I looked them over, for some reason I thought they only carried 24 aircraft.

But at 55 there's no reason they can't carry F-35Cs. Yeah It's not an F-15 or F-22, but what that can land on a carrier is?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

:capt:Well time for the NAVY to step in...
Prior to the Strategic Defense Review (SDR) of 2010 the plan was to scrap both the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. However (Another economics lesson. :p) this didn't prove a viable option to the British Government due to the contract obligations which, and you'll love this, would have made it more expensive to scrap them, then to finish building them at the stage in the construction the ships were in at the time. A fortune was already invested just in infrastructure and coordination of at least five major shipyards to "put the pieces together" not least of which included building the largest shipyard crane in the history of British shipbuilding. These carriers are the largest ships ever built in the long illustrious history of the Royal Navy.

All my respect to the RN and the then Soviet Navies as I have a pair of Submarine Dolphins from each in my "Shadow Box" for all the fun and sometimes white knuckle games we played that I've been involved with.

This situation is not unprecedented, for instance we saw the same with the MEADS Program which forced both the U.S and Italy to see the program through until it's operational testing and qualification status were completed. Germany was to back out as well, however, due to the contract environment it became favorable to stay in it and would in turn be the only country left standing that is operating the system with the possibility of Poland getting the system in the near future. The breaking of the contract for MEADS would've been in the hundreds of million dollars in penalties each for each country involved for what is considered the most advanced SAM in current use. The Carriers would've cost the UK in the billions of dollars if I remember correctly, to back out of the carriers.

The bottom-line is currently both carriers will be activated (When they realized they were stuck with both carriers, the Prince of Wales would've been "mothballed". And given the current world events this has turned out to be a most fortuitous decision.

I tried to get as close to a USN Carrier as possible, as us NAVY types like discussing these things in terms of "displacement" regarding a ships size. Also when noting aircraft capacity/or compliment it will do the reader well to realize this will include all types of aircraft such as EW, ASW, RECON, ATTACK etc. including fixed wing and rotor craft.

The Queen Elizabeth Class is designed as a multi-mission platform unlike our carriers since the RN doesn't have specialized ships for instance like our Amphibious landing ships (LHA) that'll carrying our F-35B (Which is the only one I see worthwhile to have.). With that in mind they'll carry Royal Marines with the air-wing to compliment that mission to include the APACHE helos. These ships are of the ideal size and configuration for this versatility in the multi-mission environments the modern Navies face in both the Anti-Terrorist and current Deterrence role due to the rise and resurgence of the Russian and now Chinese Navies. Also the UK still has issues in dealing with the Falklands question in particular.

A note of the FORRESTAL Class carriers the compliment of aircraft is 85 and the USS FORRESTAL (CVA-59) was the largest in displacement at 59,900 tons ((QE Class is 65,000 tons.) the rest of the class was something in the 56K and "something" range. The FORRESTAL Class is considered the first "Super Carrier" Class as well.

So next some articles and graphs/charts etc.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/features/equipped-for-the-future
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/
https://news.usni.org/2015/09/17/dsei-u-s-marine-f-35bs-will-operate-from-british-queen-elizabeth-carriers

Prospective...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.svg/2000px-World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.svg.png
http://www.military-today.com/navy/top_10_aircraft_carriers.htm

Comparison...
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=64
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551771/Scrapped-penny-USS-Forr-estal-Navys-supercarrier-begins-final-voyage-scrapyard.html

You'll find earlier posts regarding this topic in this thread, though I did delve deeper into it here. Anyway anything on the surface is nothing but a "TARGET" anyway!?! :D

My job is done here so I can enjoy the start of my weekend with a little "shut eye" time-enjoy the rest of yours!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

Guess I misread something when I looked them over, for some reason I thought they only carried 24 aircraft.

But at 55 there's no reason they can't carry F-35Cs. Yeah It's not an F-15 or F-22, but what that can land on a carrier is?


True in terms of size, but BAE gave a really crazily high quote to fit them with EMALS cats and traps, so they have a ski-jump and can only really operate F35B as a fixed wing aircraft (at least until they have a major refit and that is not going to happen this side of about 2035 ish).

24 F35B (plus helos) will be the normal peacetime air group.

In a major conflict situation this could go up to about 36 F35B -including RAF aircraft- plus helos, including airbourne early warning radar, in a strike role.

The idea being they will get tailoured air groups depending on the task. (as FASTBOAT TOUGH notes). The RN does have a number of Amphibious ships available for the Royal Marines, etc, but will lack a dedicated helicopter carrier for the time being.

The ships can carry and operate helos up to Chinook size and total aircraft capacity is said to be around 55 or so, although in an emergency Carriers can generally carry a few more aircraft than design compliment.

The first ship HMS Queen Elizabeth (named after Queen Elizabeth I) will be operational in 2019 and it is very widely expected that the second ship, Prince of Wales, will be renamed HMS Ark Royal.

Teamed with Type 45 air defence destroyers, frigates and perhaps a nuc hunter killer sub they will give the Royal Navy a formidable Carrier task force. But I wish they had a real fighter for CAP missions...

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This for perspective only, but note this was published in 2014 since then the MINSTREL class landing ship deal between Russia and France did fail due to the UKRAINE crisis. France would end up paying a substantial amount of money to break the MINSTREL contract. France would recoup the losses with the recent sale to Egypt of both the MINSTREL ships to them which literally gave Egypt a quantum leap in conducting amphibious operations in their "neighborhood" as these are highly advanced purpose built ships.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/mistral/

In my opinion given the failure of the MINSTREL deal to Russia (They were to get four of them.) and the current (But improving.) maintenance of their fleet, serious consideration has to be given to moving up the UK in swapping the two in their rankings.

Also Japan is in the process of redefining itself away from a "Self Defense Force" to a as yet undefined new role due to both the actions of N. Korea and China.

This next has the right music and is very much in line with MANY other sources online that like to rank this kind've of stuff. Note #1 and #2 have been interchangeable on the many I've seen. Everyone else seems inline with everyone elses assessment. What struck me though was how old some of these Marine Forces where.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKDBk-b-SNw

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Well, most of the worlds Marine forces are so small they just plain can't afford to develop the specialized equipment needed for amphibious assaults so make do with the last generation of USMC equipment.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

To clarify my last, I should've added that at the end of my last post, I mentioned "what struck me was how old some of these Marines Forces where." I should've added to that "historically speaking." I think it was Spain or Portugal that can trace the origin of their Marines back to the 12th Century-to me that's just too cool.

Another thought came to me in the "reading room" while actually reading T.E. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and thinking about the ref. that ranked the world's navies, that in discussing China's SSBN program that they used the word "bastion" which I haven't seen used in a longtime. The term "Bastion" was used during the Cold War years describing the areas (Soviet) Russia would use to hide their SSBN's so that they'd be fairly close to the "Motherland" and could more easily be protected by other Russian assets against "unwanted guests" :D like us. As an update the Russians are reactivating 12 Cold War era Arctic bases to have them in place as the NW Passages opens up and to protect their vast energy resources in the region.

Geographically speaking I feel now a much more strategic link to the man made islands the Chinese are building beyond just "power projection" in the South China Sea region. They can't realistically have a "bastion" setup to the North because of Russia nor to the East because they'd be sandwiched between Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea. So unless they invade Taiwan they can only go South in the area of those contested "islands" that are all going to have airfields on them and surface combatants that can operate from them along with their attack submarines. You would have all the pieces in place to support and protect a "bastion" for your SSBN subs to operate within.

I guess I just shouldn't think on a "multi channel" level in the "reading room" it sometimes drives CINCLANTHOME a little crazy in any room of the house or elsewhere but she still likes me ;) - you gotta love her for that, well I do anyway!! :angel

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

Well, most of the worlds Marine forces are so small they just plain can't afford to develop the specialized equipment needed for amphibious assaults so make do with the last generation of USMC equipment.


I doubt there is much to choose between the British Royal Marines and the USMC (one of my best mates who once saved my bacon in the British Virgin Islands, with his yacht by leaving his extremely cute French girlfriend over Xmas, was a former USMC bloke, he could drink Pussers rum in very large amounts and always said I was the only Limey he knew who was dark enough to be interesting. I, kinda, think it was a compliment, sort of). The USMC have the advantage in numbers and amounts of kit. As an Englishman I think the Royal Marines have a slight advantage in training, but I admit I'm biased.

[IronDuke99]

Geographically speaking I feel now a much more strategic link to the man made islands the Chinese are building beyond just "power projection" in the South China Sea region. They can't realistically have a "bastion" setup to the North because of Russia nor to the East because they'd be sandwiched between Taiwan, Japan and S. Korea. So unless they invade Taiwan they can only go South in the area of those contested "islands" that are all going to have airfields on them and surface combatants that can operate from them along with their attack submarines. You would have all the pieces in place to support and protect a "bastion" for your SSBN subs to operate within.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Aside from the vile Islamist a...holes, a good many already in our own nations, with others being let in by the so called 'refugees' and actually largely economic Migrant route, the biggest longer term threat to the West is from China, Communist Dictator Government but successful open economy. China is working very hard on her Navy, including Carriers, and her marines, etc.

China has the money, the man power, and the economic base to be a very serious threat in not a long time.

Japan and Australia are both taking that threat fairly seriously already, even as the Australian mining economy depends a great deal on China. Who ever said anything was simple?

[Suhiir]

I doubt there is much to choose between the British Royal Marines and the USMC (one of my best mates who once saved my bacon in the British Virgin Islands, with his yacht by leaving his extremely cute French girlfriend over Xmas, was a former USMC bloke, he could drink Pussers rum in very large amounts and always said I was the only Limey he knew who was dark enough to be interesting. I, kinda, think it was a compliment, sort of). The USMC have the advantage in numbers and amounts of kit. As an Englishman I think the Royal Marines have a slight advantage in training, but I admit I'm biased.
I'd tend to agree. The RM is more the equivalent of the USMC Recon units then the typical infantry ones.
I had the dubious honor of spending a couple years in Scotland (Holy Loch in the 70's) so have somewhat more familiarity with the RM then most.

[Suhiir]

Opening a can of worms.

I'm looking at the EW ratings of various aircraft in v10b.

US Army (OOB#12)
Unit#144 F-16C Falcon EW=8
Unit#145 F-16C Falcon EW=9
Unit#146 F-15E Eagle EW=10
Unit#156 F-15E Eagle EW=10
Unit#200 F-15E Eagle EW=10
Unit#201 F-16D Falcon EW=9
Unit#561 F-15E Eagle EW=12
Unit#595 F-22 Raptor EW=16 (currently x3)
Unit#920 F-35A JSF EW=12 (SEAD Aircraft)
Unit#921 F-35A JSF EW=9 (external ordnance)
Unit#927 F-16C Falcon EW=8
Unit#928 F-16D Falcon EW=8

Isn't the whole idea of the F-35 that it's more stealthy then the F-16/F-15? While with an external bomb load I can certainly understand it being rated the same as an F-16/F-15.

Admittedly WinSPMBT doesn't deal with "stealth" but it's sort of represented in an aircraft's EW rating, it's vulnerability to MPADs/SAMs/radar guided flack.

[DRG]

Two years and counting they have been the exact same as they are this release......before that they were 8 so you're a LITTLE late in making this an "issue"..... and it has NOTHING to do with v10b

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Suhiir actually gave me something to think about as I haven't got near as far into that side of the question of EW. I only bring it up because the F-15E Strike Eagle has/is getting a major electronics suite upgrade now. They have had some minor work done to reduce their radar and heat signature, but the advantage here is the fact it's a big plane that is capable of "warehousing" a lot of electronics in this case EW. So I was surprised to see there's already an F-15E UNIT 561 in the game with a EW that high, the only issue I see without having looked at it is might it be appearing to soon is all in the game. The USAF under pressure from Congress has already conceded the need for a new CAS (A-X Program.) platform. I see the F-15E/F-22 being the major players in "deep strike" capability for the USAF. I think the F-15E will be just as good as the F-35 (USAF decision still pending if it'll compete against the A-10 and F-35A in the CAS competition.) in a CAS role as well until the dedicated plane is chosen to replace the A-10 in that role. But in this era of precision stand off weapons the point is almost mute anyway even the newest AC gunship will have somewhat of a standoff capability with it's ability to carry "VIPER STRIKE" and others onto the battlefield.

I believe those EW numbers are about right were they need to be the F-22 should be and is rightfully so the EW standard bearer for that type of plane/or class. Only a bomber should be higher and I believe the B2 is already. The B1B and B-52H are and have had significant improvements made to their electronic suites and EW also. I will not forget the Russians as they can't be out of this discussion with the Tu-160 BLACKJACK which many sites feel is on par with a per-current model B1B. I specified the last only because I haven't yet seen or given a "DEEP LOOK" into whether or not they've received any recent electronic upgrades.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/tu160/

But like the F-22 above, the B2 is the standard bearer in EW for bombers without a doubt.

Is there not an F-35 with internal bomb load in the game? I thought there was but not listed above unless I missed it.

As a reminder I've posted several articles in here on the new updated electronics suite the F-22 is already flying with. As this is ongoing I would bet the ones with that suite already installed are the ones that've hit targets in Syria who never knew they were there using some of Russia's newest SAM systems.

A little something I've been talking about for years now is going to finally get it's day in court, after the USAF released their numbers a short time ago the Congress isn't buying the conclusions reached (After all they have full access to that and their own data sources.) anyway there'll be another look...
http://www.janes.com/article/59675/pentagon-budget-2017-legislation-would-seek-f-22-production-restart

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Is there not an F-35 with internal bomb load in the game? I thought there was but not listed above unless I missed it.

Regards,
Pat
It's really only a matter of what you load them with. The F-35A and C normally carry a pair of 2000# JDAMs and the F-35B 1000#ers as internal bomb load. So If you load them with only that they're currently rated +1 to their EW rating (should probably be +2 IMHO).

Then when loaded with internal and external stores, around 18,000 total for the A & C and 15,000 for the B (but of course most aircraft only actually about half their max bomb load as they need to also carry enough fuel to get someplace) their EW rating is (or should be) about the same as an F-16 (or perhaps 1 better since they are a semi-stealth aircraft whereas the F-16 is not).

[DRG]

Japan’s first F-35A will make its maiden flight in September 2016

http://defence-blog.com/news/japans-first-f-35a-will-make-its-maiden-flight-in-september-2016.html


We'll see how this develops............

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This couldn't wait. The person involved was described as an amateur, but many spies start that way. What worries me from that industry source comment and that I'd like to ask them is, what are there feelings about a professional spy? Well you'll just have to read the article to see what I'm talking about. I promise you the "journey" will be worth it for what this spy plan involved.

Sourced from DID...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/2016/06/10/chinese-national-convicted-export-violations/85695920/

Have a great "what ever" today. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

What else is new?
Half the time during the Cold War the Kremlin knew what was in the pipes for new equipment before US field commanders did.

But being the rabid [insert the proper term for a female canine here] that I am ... I still think spies should be shot as tradition dictates.

[MarkSheppard]

From another board; possible initial IOC of CHINESE Y-20 HEAVY TRANSPORT

Following the latest rumour, the first two serial Y-20s were handed over to the PLAAF in a ceremony and are numbered 11051 and 11053 !

If true these numbers would indicate the 12th Regiment of the 4th Division Transport in Chengdu/Qionglai, a former/current Y-7 unit:

Following these reports, the Y-20 entered indeed service today and a ceremony was held at the CFTE. Another rehearsal was also held in Qionglai. There is a high probability that there will be another ceremony and media coverage tomorrow.

Hopefully more later,
Deino

[MarkSheppard]

Half the time during the Cold War the Kremlin knew what was in the pipes for new equipment before US field commanders did

I know this is slightly off-topic, but each year, the Soviet Embassy would go to the US GPO and buy all the budget documents, discussion documents, etc published each year by the US Government through the GPO and then fly them out to the USSR, where they'd be analyzed.

You can learn a lot from the UNCLASS versions the GPO makes available.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've posted on this situation with both sources and "my humble opinion" as not necessarily towards the USMC and USAF directly but, the measures required by these branches of the military to maintain they're respective air fleets due to the various delays and cost overruns of the F-35. These issues are exasperated due to not being able to retire platforms, having to maintain those same platforms, training costs for pilots, maintenance crews and beyond maintenance issues the modernization of some of these same platforms. And maybe lives.

For instance, there would be no F/A-18 E/F "SUPER HORNET" series if not for the delay of the F-35C. In fact the USN is forced into buying more "SUPER HORNETS" as noted below. The UK might've rethought their position on at least selling their GR.7/9 HARRIERS to the USMC for their use as spares for the AV-8B II PLUS HARRIERS had they known 1) These delays would be ongoing and 2) They were stuck in having to proceed in completing both QUEEN ELIZABETH Class carriers which was not known at the time they retired their HARRIERS.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornet-fleets-keeping-em-flying-02816/

The planes that have truly benefited from this come from the USAF. In the shorter term that would be the A-10 with (They also brought some out of the boneyard as well due to OP TEMPO.) refurbished airframes and upgraded electronics suite to enhance both offensive and defensive capabilities.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsus-amends-defence-funding-legislation-to-pave-way-for-a-10-wing-upgrades-4928602

In the medium term the F-16 later current versions have seen extensive and ongoing life extension programs to cover all noted for the A-10 and beyond. The long term winner I think some of you have figured out, of course, is the F-22 it has everything done as already mentioned and so much more especially related to the "complete package" directly related to the development of the F-35 program. It'll be flying to at least ~2040.

So back to the CORPS problem, of keeping flying and maintaining OP TEMPO and spending money that could have an impact on either their land programs or long term F-35B buys depending on how long these delays keep going on. Here's your story...
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/marines-scrounge-yorktown-museum-f-18-for-spare-parts-how-bad-is-it/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/04/26/fleet-peril-how-congressional-budget-cuts-are-crippling-the-marines-air-power/81974498/
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/26/navy-lays-bare-fa-18-readiness-gaps-take-year-surge-air-wing
http://www.janes.com/article/61166/us-marine-corps-recovering-boneyard-hornets-to-plug-capability-gap
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-06-10/boeing-restores-30-f/18c-models-marine-corps
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/marine-corps-forced-to-pull-warbirds-out-of-boneyard-after-new-fleet-delay/ar-AAhppQQ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout


Economics will always drive military decisions whether in terms of money or, in our world slots.

Some of these planes will yet to be presented for inclusion here.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

A stealthy fighter/bomber only as long as the ammo stores are internal. Once those bomb doors open it is no longer stealthy. If it flies in CAS with external stores, and as I understand, with a reduced load as compared to the A-10, at least in the F-35B it is far from what the money bought.

The many variants of the F-16 are doing fighter/bomber and CAS roles just fine for the many Armed services around the globe.

I just hope they did not take away money from Navy medical to help fund this budget whale.

====

Sourced: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

[Suhiir]

Economics will always drive military decisions whether in terms of money or, in our world slots.
Always does.
I not-so-fondly remember taking up collections among the unmarried folks so the married ones could pay their rent/eat during the Carter years budget shenanigans.

A stealthy fighter/bomber only as long as the ammo stores are internal. Once those bomb doors open it is no longer stealthy. If it flies in CAS with external stores, and as I understand, with a reduced load as compared to the A-10, at least in the F-35B it is far from what the money bought.
The thing folks keep forgetting is the idea is the initial bombing missions with drastically reduced internal stores are to allow opposition air defense capabilities to be neutralized/reduced. After this has happened they can fly with full external stores, and be just as stealthy as say an F-16, because they no longer have to worry (near as much) about high-tech air defense weapons. Sure there will still be non-radar directed AA guns and MPADS and other heat seeking stuff but F-16s currently face that now and manage to still do their job.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I warn you in advance the below is a very in depth analysis, the topic covers the broad range of issues concerning the RN/RAF use of the F-35, HARRIERS and the F/A-18A/G SUPER HORNETS. Also it covers Carrier Ops, coordinated Air Ops, Carriers (QE Class.) and weapons. These are a series of memorandums from Commander "Sharkey" Ward, DSC, AFC, RN, considered by many as "Father of HARRIER Ops" as sent to MOD and MP's. There are date tabs on the upper Left corner to guide you. To read this you must go to the bottom document and read down again and so on to the top of the ref. The time period covers March - June 2013. I'm only 3 or 4 in myself and find it very enlightening that parallels some of the issues we face here as well.
He has an excellent book out I read back around '95 while on patrol and just received a new hard bound ed. for my birthday just recently on HARRIER Ops during the Falklands War, its development and RN/RAF lack of understanding of it's operational capabilities along with inter services rivalries. Some might find it a interesting read though a little technical in the beginning.
Anyway here you go "Good Luck and Good Hunting"...
http://sharkeysworld2.blogspot.com/?view=classic

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Frankly I have to wonder about several of his comments and conclusions.

"The Air Marshal does not appear to understand that the decks of U.S. Navy and US Marine Corps carriers are up to 4 inches thick - whereas our new carrier decks are less than 1 inch thick - and even with its superior deck thickness, the USS Wasp F35B STOVL embarkation demonstrated a need for deck reinforcement."
Since when does the USMC operate any ships at all? The US Army has ships, I thing even the USAF has a few. And 4 inch thick flight decks? Not on anything built post WW II.

"May I draw your attention to the statements given by your witnesses concerning air defence of the carriers without the Crow’s Nest or any other AEW capability. Contrary to your witnesses statements our Daring class destroyers cannot provide long range early warning of threats approaching at very low level such as sea skimming missiles and their launch platforms. The destroyers have a horizon-limited detection range against low level incoming threats of approximately 23 nautical miles which is insufficient to provide adequate reaction time against a missile attack."
Since when do picket ships operate directly on top of what they are protecting? The picket is likely to be 15-20 NM from the carrier giveing the carrier apx. twice as much reaction time.

Amidst much obfuscation, your witnesses endeavoured to persuade your Committee that the choice of the F35B STOVL aircraft for our new carriers is driven by the need to attain an early ‘initial operating capability’ at reasonable cost. It is quite extraordinary therefore that neither Members of your Committee nor any of the witnesses raised the issue of the far more cost and operationally effective options for our carrier air groups – the F18 Super Hornet, Super Growler and Hawkeye aircraft:
I don't believe the flight deck on the Queen Elizabeth is large enough to handle any of the above aircraft.

So perhaps you'll excuse me if I take everything in there with a large dose of salt.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

You have to be careful of the time frame these documents were produced, in 2013 the decision on what plane and how the flight deck would be designed was very much up in the air. The plane issue is buried in here somewhere. The QE Class carriers have three runways two at 160m/or 525ft. the larger one is at 260m/or 853ft.. As a flattop she would've been equipped with the electromagnetic catapults which will be on our newest class carriers. That decision was made before the RN's commitment to the F-38B Program. I'm not sure that a final decision for the flight deck of the Prince of Wales has been made yet. Last I read they were holding off on this decision pending program delays and increased cost issues of the F-35B that still might affect their final buy of the number of units. They will probably go the the F/A-18E/F or possibly the navalized Rafael that the French I believe are using on their much smaller carrier compared to the QE Class now.

Concerning the F/A-18E/F they are about 25ft. longer than the C/D version and heavier by I believe 2-3Klbs. if not mistaken. With catapult assistance the E/F needs at least 300ft (~1500 feet unassisted.) minimum take off distance and again a minimum of 329ft (~+1350ft non-arrested.) landing distance with a arresting system.

So the QE Class can handle them. By way of another example the Russian KIEV is ONLY 14m longer in total length then the length of the longest flight deck on the QE Class carriers and it carries 18 M-29K jets plus 8 Helicopters using a "ski jump"!

The basics have always come down to high ships speed into the wind to provide maximum lift for the aircraft, supplemented by aircraft engine power/thrust and catapults if equipped.

The QE Class is a very multi-functional carrier though the QE will be commissioned with a "ski jump" deck, these decks can easily be converted to a flattop in a normal refit period and vice versa. These are well designed and functional ships.

From the Ref...
"No catapult or arresters will be fitted in the initial build but the carrier will be built to accommodate a future back-fit. The carrier will be fitted with a steam catapult or electromagnetic launch system and arrester gear, if the option to convert the carrier to the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant proceeds.

The deck has three runways: two shorter runways of approximately 160m for the STOVL joint strike fighter and a long runway, approximately 260m over the full length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft – an area of nearly 13,000m². The deck will have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the stern of the ship."
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html
https://www.quora.com/Military-Why-dont-US-Aircraft-Carriers-have-ski-jumps

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[shahadi]

Economics will always drive military decisions whether in terms of money or, in our world slots.
Always does.
I not-so-fondly remember taking up collections among the unmarried folks so the married ones could pay their rent/eat during the Carter years budget shenanigans.

A stealthy fighter/bomber only as long as the ammo stores are internal. Once those bomb doors open it is no longer stealthy. If it flies in CAS with external stores, and as I understand, with a reduced load as compared to the A-10, at least in the F-35B it is far from what the money bought.
The thing folks keep forgetting is the idea is the initial bombing missions with drastically reduced internal stores are to allow opposition air defense capabilities to be neutralized/reduced. After this has happened they can fly with full external stores, and be just as stealthy as say an F-16, because they no longer have to worry (near as much) about high-tech air defense weapons. Sure there will still be non-radar directed AA guns and MPADS and other heat seeking stuff but F-16s currently face that now and manage to still do their job.

Interesting. Bomb doors is misleading as the F-35 will carry air-air missiles internally as well. In fact, to retain stealth the bird must pack it's stores internally. Point here is that when the pilot opens the Weapons doors to let loose an air-air she's painted a tango. Even the gun is internal on the JSF.

In the game, I use jets although they are more eye candy than game "impactors." I can do more with attack helicopters than jets. Well a USV is handy too.

It was the former president of the United States Eisenhower that warned of a military-industrial complex in 1961.

[Suhiir]

Aircraft with JDAMs/Mavericks or other "smart" munitions are fairly useful, but yeah, those with "dumb" munitions are really more eye candy then anything else. Once in a blue moon something amazing will happen (like the time three B-52s actually hit the target area) but for the most part given the unit cost they are a waste of a significant number of points.

SEAD aircraft however work fairly well. I recall someone once saying they bought only SEAD types and I can't say I blame them, because they'll at least prioritize AA which can be quite handy if you also have helos.

[DRG]

attachmentid=14358&stc=1&d=1468450406 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14358&stc=1&d=1468450406)Aircraft with JDAMs/Mavericks or other "smart" munitions are fairly useful, but yeah, those with "dumb" munitions are really more eye candy then anything else. .

I know we've been over this before and I cannot see what you are doing to get such negative effects but this.....

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14357&stc=1&d=1468449403

was a simple test scenario I set up with 39 visability and 155's had whacked the area first so there was a bit of smoke about.. This shows the second banshee after it knocked out the second tank....the first Banshee knocked out the first tank.....39 visibility attacking in hilly terrain and the NKs have 37mm AA firing at the Banshees on the way in and out...

I know that **some people* don't seem to have any luck with airstrikes and I don't know why.....they are NOT a "sure thing" but I don't think of them as a uselsss waste of points


The second time I tried the scenario I got one kill, the third time was one kill and 1 ** damage....all with "dumb" munitions

The test scenario is attached...just press quit orders


EDIT....... and that Banshee photo was SUPPOSED to have been changed last time to 828. and a new pic for the FH-1 Phantom ..oops ( in now.........)


Don

[Suhiir]

Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.

[DRG]

Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.

I'm going to take a look at Napalm when we start work on the games again.

Don

[DRG]

Rockets seem to work fairly well, I was referring to bombs/napalm, I should have been more clear.

OK.. tell me WHY.......is it the aircraft and the way they attack you have issues with or the weapons that they use ??

I need details. I have discovered a few things but I want to hear it from you and anyone else who wants to jump in

Don

[Suhiir]

It seems "guided" weapons (LGBs, rockets, etc.) lock onto a specific target and thus hit or miss. Even with the frequent (50%?) chance of a reduced penetration hit they're still 50% probable to kill what they hit.

Whereas dumb bombs/napalm seem to attack a target hex, and anything within the blast radius may be effected. But since they rarely have have much, if any, any AP Pen armored vehicles are essentially immune. While soft vehicles are frequently effected infantry type units rarely suffer more then suppression. If you're trying to take out something like say a mortar merely suppressing the crew really doesn't have much effect ... a reduction in ROF for a turn or two. Napalm is GREAT at suppression but almost never causes casualties, and again after a turn or so that's worn off.

You don't dare try to drop bombs anywhere near your own units and suppressing something half way across the map for a couple turns hardly makes a 150-300+ point aircraft worth the cost.

[DRG]

You don't dare drop bombs anywhere near your own units in reality either..... can't say I agree with "Napalm .... almost never causes casualties" the tests I've run do not support that.

Napalm in SPWW2-SPMBT has 150% higher HE kill than the stock SP2 OOB's did but it holds over the small WH values and that's one thing I'm looking at but as for...Napalm .....never causes casualties....not in my tests and what survivors there may be are running for the map edge not just " surpressed"

What I did find was way back when we lowered the HE pen of aerial bombs in comparison to SP2's values and investigating that is one of my fall projects....SO NICE of Microsoft to "improve" the OS so now I have to fire up the XP machine when I want to check the original OOB's with the original MOBHack....it kinda lowers my enthusiasm

Don

[shahadi]

Interesting reports from the first Gulf War illustrating the tenacity of precision guided munitions:

"The reaction of Iraqi forces to direct precision air attacks indicated that the traditional powerful psychological impact of air attack had, at last, been matched by the equally powerful impact of actual destruction. Two quotes serve to highlight this, the first from an Iraqi battalion commander interrogated by a US Marine Corps intelligence specialist a month after the war ended:

Interrogator: How many of your soldiers were killed by the air war?

Iraqi Officer: To be honest, for the amount of ordnance that was dropped, not very many. Only one soldier was killed and two were wounded. The soldier that was killed did not die as a result of a direct hit, but because the vibrations of the bomb caused a bunker to cave in on top of him.

Interrogator: So, then you feel the aerial bombardment was ineffective?

Iraqi Officer: Oh no! Just the opposite! It was extremely effective! The planes hit only vehicles and equipment. Even my personal vehicle, a ‘Waz’ was hit. They hit everything! [emphasis in original text]

The second is from an Iraqi general reflecting morosely on the war:

During the Iran war, my tank was my friend because I could sleep in it and know I was safe ... During this war my tank became my enemy ... none of my troops would get near a tank at night because they just kept blowing up." (Hallion, Richard P, "PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS AND THE NEW ERA OF WARFARE",http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/docs/paper53.htm)

I get it our game is a game not a simulation. However, I would expect modern era aircraft with smart munitions to hit a designated target far in excess of 50%.

==========

[DRG]

Now on the list to investigate

Don

[Imp]

I get it our game is a game not a simulation. However, I would expect modern era aircraft with smart munitions to hit a designated target far in excess of 50%.

I agree they sometimes get distracted by a less valuable target on the approach line especially if it shoots at them so you need to think about the approach.
Problem with air is same as artillery though in that it comes in a few turns later so you need to predict where the target unit will be & hope for the best. Unlike artillery it will normally hit something but it may not be the target you were hoping for.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've been saying this for sometime now in this thread and elsewhere. THANK YOU for for giving these precision weapons another look. I well remember watching a B-1 flying low and level dropping bombs on a trench line on the evening news no one walked away from it. After that happened a few times, the mere act of dropping leaflets on or near trenched or other defensive positions saying surrender or you'll be bombed was enough to convince them to do just that. The video on the news reminded me of the Italian mass surrenders in Africa during WWII.

We cannot deny technologies continuing advancement. However once we get to "kill capable" laser weapons I think I'll just take a long holiday and play with what I have prior to that time. ;) I know when the time comes down the road I'll be submitting aircraft with SNIPER, LITENING etc. targeting pods. We are making progress and NLOS has lead the way from the last patch.

We're getting there as Andy and Don are still managing to squeeze out and manipulate the software to give us the best game platform possible.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Couldn't get this on my last in time. Some might find this interesting...
http://hdvideo18.com/video/one-bomb-kills-40-tanks-us-air-force-cbu-105-cluster-bomb-hdvideo/CY9gojFu-_U
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/attack-and-fighter-aircraft/rockwell-b-1-lancer-wings-of-a-dream/2081600103001

In the first video open up the info section for the weapons data.

Nice straight and narrow. Makes me wonder if the bomb drop zone in the game is too long and should be shorter with a more "with a focused punch" if you will.

I had at one time early in this thread videos showing incoming test and actual bombing runs on targets using targeting pods. Those targets were locked on at distances out to 50Km+. That was 1st at best 2nd Gen pods. Those pods are now into their 5th or 6th Gen depending on manufacturer. Accuracy is no longer really an issue for the major players. Russia was slower than most and only really got into the "game" in the last few years.
Those post are in here, some saw them I believe and commented on them however, seems funny that those videos became "dead links" in less then a few weeks. I'm thinking they were not meant to be posted by I believe Lockheed Martin at the time. Maybe they might work now as the systems are more advanced.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm slow on the edits tonight-sorry!

The post on referred to concerning the Targeting Pods in located on
Page 6 Post 56 12/11/2011 on my computer. Those videos are indeed still dead (404 error code.) however the posts that follow indicate some watched those videos with comment. Also my above distances were incorrect and should read 25NM and 35NM for those targeting videos.

And now I see what they did, found new videos and some I recognize from that above mentioned Post, they've covered some of the data. However there's a very quick video of a boat in the water taken from 40NM out in the upper right corner.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/Sniper.html

Some more from the original videos the air base scene was from the distance noted in my 11 Dec. 2011 post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi9d8bstWsE

Another video...
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/10/watch_an_f-15_sniper_wipe_out.html

Data points...
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104527/sniper-pod.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sniper-targeting-pods-hitting-the-mark-0562/
http://www.lmnetcents.com/us/products/Sniper/mfc-sniper-atp-infographic-1000th-delivery.html
http://www.lmnetcents.com/us/products/Sniper.html

Well have a great day I need some sleep!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I gave the wrong "scene" from the video I referred to in my last concerning the boat shot. I have "captured" the right "scene" below of possibly a small fence line protected production or storage facility. For scale note the white truck in the upper right center portion of the facility or vehicles just outside of it along the bottom length of it. The location of the distance mark in the snapshot is still in the upper right @ 40nm.

14369

If your a "true baseball fan" in a couple of days you'll know where I'll be for the next week. Take Care!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I can only speak reliably from my own experience (of course).

While "smart" weapons do tend to hit/kill their target more often in reality then they do in WinSPMBT I've also VERY frequently seen the same already dead tank with multiple hits. From 10,000 ft a tank is a tank on a TV monitor, a thermal hot spot is a thermal hot spot, there's no way to determine if its functional vice one already killed by someone else. This tends to explain some of the inflated "kill" reports made by pilots. In game this sort of thing cannot be directly simulated, but the reduced chance to hit/kill we have in WinSPMBT can be viewed as representing this.

It's also well known that dumb bombs are relatively ineffective vs armored targets unless they're delivered via dive bombing type attacks (ask anyone from a WW II Panzer Division that was attacked by the USAF ... tanks were rarely destroyed, the support vehicles however were decimated), and that sort of thing also isn't represented in the game (well ... sort of ... some aircraft are given a higher "Fire Control" rating). WinSPMBT represents aircraft as they are generally used by most of the worlds nations ... a single 10,000 foot pass where the pilot has perhaps a couple seconds to locate a tiny, to them, target; and a tank is a tank from that altitude, enemy or friendly. My personal "problem" is, being a Jarhead, I'm use to aircraft flown by semi-suicidal USMC/USN pilots at tree top heights directed by skilled aerial observers. Something WinSPMBT cannot represent.

While the incidence of friendly fire when targeting close to your own forces is much higher then I'd expect in reality this is probably due to the visibility code (this is my OPINION since I have no clue exactly what the game code looks like). An aircraft can see the units on it's own side, it may, or may not, see the enemy. So if it sees 20 friendly units in it's target area and 5 enemy it's going to hit a friendly one 80% of the time. Without a massive code rewrite there is probably nothing that can be done about this.

Don and Andy have, and continue to, work wonders with the game. But some things are pretty much beyond their control and others are subjective.

[shahadi]

In our game, the playability of fixed and rotate aircraft could use some tweaking. I offer the following observations while developing my latest scenario:

I designated a 82mm mortar to a Harrier, selected a 250 lb SDB for the mission. A turn later the Harrier targeted a fortified House 700m away from the designated target.

That should not happen. The Harrier should have fired on the mortar not the fortified house.

I had a Warthog approach over a Taliban squad, it expended it's stores on the squad and did not attack it's assigned target, a 82mm mortar. I would have the Warthog use cannon or guns on the Taliban squad (target of opportunity), but it should have attacked it's designated target too, completing it's mission with remaining rockets and bombs.

I switched from COIN to fighter bomber with similar results. I increased visibility from 22 to 70, similar result on the first sortie. On the second sortie the Harrier and Warthog knocked out their targets.

I would expect the Harrier or Warthog with vision settings at 40 to successfully fire on the designated target regardless of visibility at 22 or 70.

These observations I offer to assist in the understanding of what the game is doing and how player expectations may differ.

=======

[DRG]

if a "better" target is seen , the aircraft WILL attack it. Some of that issue CAN be modified with the direction of the attack

[Imp]

Aircraft coding certainly produces varied results, if you want specific target selection use a helo.
SEAD aircraft with other weapons left can be very loath to use anything but there cannon, I fly them round as scouts generally.
Sometimes & I have no idea how to make this happen a plane will attack multiple targets in one run which can cause a smile or two

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This has been the whole point of this exercise with me for many, many years now. Don and I have had many discussions over the "vision" question across all platforms in this game. He has convinced awhile back of the importance of maintaining if you will an "upper limit" within the game for vision currently capped at 60 hexes for air units and 50 for the more advanced armor in the game. We don't have in my opinion a playable map where in "real life" air/armor units couldn't see all the way across it and in the case of air units a large wide area of it as well.

It took me awhile out here (Ask Don.) to realize there has to definitely be a balance between those above mentioned factors. It is important to maintain these distinctions for this game to keep it viable for the player. We don't need everyone seeing everyone else on the map, which I can assure you we and others can do at both the tactical and strategic level in real time.

That being said, this is why certain units have that "watered down" advantage to encourage the player to think about those nasty things potentially being out there and to get you thinking tactically and not like the general that ordered "The Charge of the Light Brigade" it ended bad for them, it'll end bad for your units as well.

It seems at times, and I could be sadly mistaken, this is a game about maneuver as much as it's about combat. Sometimes that seems to get lost out here. Case in point any air that spots your "hidden" units or your SPA/SPAA etc. units, I would hope that'll cause you to move them if you can if ever I play against a human and you don't move, your units will pay the price. I also can promise you the AI WILL NOT hesitate to do the same as well.

What I see is the dialing back of vision (TI/GSR) for certain countries receiving advanced equipment from other countries. By example, the USA AH-64E after some discussion with Don, I submitted it with a 60 TI/GSR very fair given the first 2 paras above. However Taiwan has them now as well and operational, the UK, South Korea and India are getting them as well. But would we give those countries the full package from at least the FCS standpoint of which TI/GSR is a direct component of that said FCS? In short the answer is no. The below ref. will show a real life case of that situation.

What I'm going to recommend is in the above case either a generous 55 or probably a more realistic 50. I believe in the USA OOB the AH-64D LONGBOW current vision is at 50, with that ref. that number would be supported game wise.
http://www.janes.com/article/59908/aaaa-2016-india-to-get-longbow-radars-for-apaches

Parity should never be a part of this game, there will always be "the haves" and "have nots" that being said I seem to remember the "have nots" did a pretty good job against two major "haves" in a place called Vietnam. ;)

I need to get to bed, just something nice about knowing you have only one work day in the week and three when you come back. Life is good sometimes that way. :p

Remember don't go over that hill and through the trees too fast something bad might be on the other side!! :shock:

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Imp]

If your looking at dialling back TI in some cases in a players hands a difference of just a couple of hexes is a huge advantage Cheiftain with 22 vision for example instead of 20.
Modern battles can be quite complex especially vs countries like Russia when you suddenly come across a platoon of tanks with vision that outranges yours.
The AI can take advantage of this if its defending.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This newer article backs what I've been posting about the joint Russian/Indian T-50/PAK-FA fighter-bomber it might not be as stealthy as originally thought. However she'll be a much better in dog fight then the the F-35 which this article has maintained that distinction as expressed over the last five years or so. It could've been better if India had had it's way. India wanted the fighter with better stealth qualities to deal with the Chinese and Pakistani Air Forces.

What happened? Yes that nasty economic thing almost ended up killing the project for both countries and Russia more so as it's experiencing mounting economic pressures brought on by the worlds oil glut and widespread corruption within it's economic system (Soshi comes to mind, in the fact that S. Korea will have their Olympic facilities built for about 2/3 to 3/4 of the cost less then the Russians did 2yrs ago.)

India's response was to buy the RAFALE.

There still is some great information in the diagrams provided concerning weapons and other capabilities.

To be clear this is still an outstanding warbird.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/moscow-touts-its-next-generation-fighter-the-t50-pakfa/news-story/548d17c397a49ca0d9318265ed8252c5

Yup, tracking since day one.

Though it's in the game, I suspect there might be some "tweaking" to come down the road, especially depending on what India will do to their fighters. If they add some of the equipment they want, which might actually happen, the PAK-FA will at a minimum have a higher EW rating then the Russian version. Time will tell as these fighters still are a couple or more years away from becoming fully operational.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

This newer article backs what I've been posting about the joint Russian/Indian T-50/PAK-FA fighter-bomber it might not be as stealthy as originally thought. However she'll be a much better in dog fight then the the F-35Regards,
Pat
:capt:


YEAH BUT.........we're not fighting WW1, "dog fighting" isn't the way things go anymore

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Meant that in modern terms-sorry-it is thought with the capabilities of it's radar in range and search capability plus the Russian advanced Air-to-Air missiles now recently in service it would give the PAK-FA the edge. In maneuverability that will clearly fall to the PAK-FA as well due to the advanced "vectoring" system it uses. The experts feel in this area it performs almost as well as the F-22. We'll see though irrelevant to the game. Again the keys factors from last for us is we have a better handle on what she can drop on the ground and how much, she'll have an excellent EW rating though less then the F-22 but, should be comparable to the F-35 and she'll be fast without after burners, and they know she's got a very low heat signature in line with both the F-22 & F-35.

But to be clear (F-22) there's not a better fighter in the air in regards to it's electronics suite, EW, speed and finally stealth. As in the real world for this game it's the "Gold Standard" which is now combat proven.

Cannons I would guess are there to make the pilots feel comfortable in the air and so they have something to strafe with.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

Cannons I would guess are there to make the pilots feel comfortable in the air and so they have something to strafe with.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:


Mind you the end of air to air dog fighting has been repeatedly predicted (before WWII, before Vietnam to name two I can think of) and it has yet to happen. A bit like the end of the Tank...

[Suhiir]

WW I style dogfighting died with biplanes, then WW II style died with the adoption of the jet engine, then Vietnam style died with the advent of computer assisted flight controls ...

The point is a specific style of dogfighting may well become outmoded ... but machinegun/cannon range air-to-air combat persists, and will continue to persist.

[shahadi]

Dogfighting is a form of aerial combat. The F-4 Phantom lack of guns in Vietnam killed that experiment and the Navy went back to Top Gun school. Dogfighting has no place in our game anyway.

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I did say that my self above...as I've said this for years now as well concerning this piece of equipment. I thank god at at least the USN has more patience then both the USAF and USMC. Looks like the the year we settled on almost a year ago in this thread is going to hold up as 2018+ as it stands.
http://www.janes.com/article/63249/f-35-programme-remains-at-risk-at-sdd-conclusion-chief-pentagon-test-official-warns
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagons-top-weapons-tester-doubts-f-35a-capabilit-428786/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike-fighter-program-07501/

A linked aside if you will...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/government-report-usaf-lacks-info-to-back-a-10-reti-428787/

Hate fighters in the game. Love fighter-bombers though!?!
Not a topic starter as it's well covered already within this and other threads to include fairly recently.)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

A linked aside if you will...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/government-report-usaf-lacks-info-to-back-a-10-reti-428787/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Have always wondered how the F35 was going to replace the A10 in doing CAS, as it seems an awfully expensive aircraft to put in the way of casual ground fire from rifles, MG's and auto cannon, etc.

I have certainly read Crabs (sorry RAF officers) saying that they think 'mud moving' is better left to kit like British Army Apache attack helicopters rather than their fast, shiny, pointy things...

[Suhiir]

As to the F-35 replacing the A-10 ... not really. But the upper brass in the USAF never wanted the A-10 to start with and has been trying to get rid of it for years. They see the F-35 as their big chance. In spite of nay-sayers the F-35 won't be any worse then the F-16 in the ground support role, and probably better as it carries a larger payload. While the 30mm gat on the A-10 is nice it's hardly the super weapons some folks try to make it out to be. What the F-35 primarily lacks is the loiter time the A-10 has, and that matters a lot in ground support.

I use to chuckle when the USAF kept claiming it could win wars with bombs alone, these days I just roll my eyes.

[IronDuke99]

I use to chuckle when the USAF kept claiming it could win wars with bombs alone, these days I just roll my eyes.

Lol. Indeed.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I found this to be a very useful multi-sourced article (Bloomberg & JANES etc.) on the F-35 issue with some video and multiple pictures (Click for additional ones as indicated.) included. It does an excellent job of bring context to the issue and brought a couple that you might not be aware such as the ejection seat for instance. Anyway hope you find it useful...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3759036/The-400bn-F-35-not-path-success-Damning-test-report-warns-fighter-jet-running-time-money.html

Bonus... Some good video of latest Russian aircraft.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/25/watch-this-unique-footage-of-russias-most-advanced-combat-planes/

Russia's A-10...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-10-warthog-why-the-su-25-frogfoot-flying-tank-17499

Provided by http://www.combataircraft.com a site I've been using for awhile now.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

The F35 seems to have been under development for ever (over 15 years certainly) and they only recently found out that ejecting from it is highly dangerous?

Since UK built her new aircraft carriers as STOVL ships, stupidly in my view, she is sadly totally locked into the bloody F35B, so we must hope they get this very expensive aircraft to work properly...

[Suhiir]

They will ... eventually.
Lots of new tech with the stealth, computer assisted flight controls, and most importantly the battlefield info management.

The question of course is ... how much better then the F-16, F-18, A-6, and A-10 will it be? Obviously better in some respects and worse in others since it's not purpose built for a specific niche. Since the US Navy plans to keep the F-18 (primarily for the air superiority role) we can assume the F-35 won't match the newest F-18 in this role. But keep in mind (unlike the majority of people seem to be able to) it's primarily a ground support/attack aircraft not an air superiority fighter.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

As Don well knows this next was the plane (Type) that needed to be in the game in regards to the top 5 or so major OOB's when I offered to cull them of the fighter types to open up slots in those OOB's. But after some discussion a couple of years back, we touched on some of the issues involved to include the complication of these planes being available in scenarios along with pick lists etc. So Don doesn't get upset I'm not asking for that again but, am still available if that should ever come about!?! :p

Point is this plane along with the A-10, GRACH where among a handful to support the above discussion, this one being the key in my mind. It is part of a very exclusive category only slightly bigger by about 3 planes called 4.5 GEN which notably is where the GRIPEN and many would say the T-50/PAK-FA truly belongs. Of course 5th GEN belongs to the F-22 and as yet to be fully determined maybe the F-35 if they can keep the paint on it!?!.

It is one of my favorites and will be competing against the F-35 in the below ref. Though not from AUSA the aviation "think tank", the next does a very good job in it's assessment of these two aircraft very much in line with AUSA and a couple of others. And as a reminder in air to air combat this plane is undefeated with a record 100 to 0.

Well enough "shenanigans" here's your read...
http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/2014/07/fighter-jet-fight-club-f-35-vs-silent.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

They will ... eventually.
Lots of new tech with the stealth, computer assisted flight controls, and most importantly the battlefield info management.

The question of course is ... how much better then the F-16, F-18, A-6, and A-10 will it be? Obviously better in some respects and worse in others since it's not purpose built for a specific niche. Since the US Navy plans to keep the F-18 (primarily for the air superiority role) we can assume the F-35 won't match the newest F-18 in this role. But keep in mind (unlike the majority of people seem to be able to) it's primarily a ground support/attack aircraft not an air superiority fighter.

Agreed. However the F35B will have to able perform as a fighter (rather than only as a fighter bomber) in Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm service, since it will be the only fixed wing aircraft the two new, 65,000 ton RN Carriers can operate.

Some UK F35B's will be RAF manned and some Fleet Air Arm manned, although all are expected to operate from the Carriers as required. On which note many of us will recall the reluctance of the RAF to operate Harriers from Carriers once they controlled the whole Harrier force (before they helped kill it in favour of keeping more Tornadoes). But I digress.

Anyway, a Task Force at sea can sometimes, have land based air cover, although traditionally that has not by any means worked very well. Sometimes you can have help from allies, but your allies may not always be fighting in your war (ie, something like the Falkland conflict).

So from a UK point of view the performance of the F35B in the air to air role is of rather more than academic interest...

[Suhiir]

I suspect the F-35B will be a significant improvement over the Sea Harrier. Since the UK decided not to outfit the Queen Elizabeth's as conventional carriers any attempt to compare the F-35 to the F-18 is pointless. If they wanted F-18's they'd have outfitted the carriers to handle them.

[shahadi]

I suspect the F-35B will be a significant improvement over the Sea Harrier. Since the UK decided not to outfit the Queen Elizabeth's as conventional carriers any attempt to compare the F-35 to the F-18 is pointless. If they wanted F-18's they'd have outfitted the carriers to handle them.

Only with respect to carrier based EW roles, the F-35B or F-35C can not replace the F-18 Growler. This looms as a major concern.

=====

[Suhiir]

I suspect the F-35B will be a significant improvement over the Sea Harrier. Since the UK decided not to outfit the Queen Elizabeth's as conventional carriers any attempt to compare the F-35 to the F-18 is pointless. If they wanted F-18's they'd have outfitted the carriers to handle them.

Only with respect to carrier based EW roles, the F-35B or F-35C can not replace the F-18 Growler. This looms as a major concern.

=====
Read up on the EF-35C Ferret.

[shahadi]

I suspect the F-35B will be a significant improvement over the Sea Harrier. Since the UK decided not to outfit the Queen Elizabeth's as conventional carriers any attempt to compare the F-35 to the F-18 is pointless. If they wanted F-18's they'd have outfitted the carriers to handle them.

Only with respect to carrier based EW roles, the F-35B or F-35C can not replace the F-18 Growler. This looms as a major concern.

=====
Read up on the EF-35C Ferret.

Sure. But, where they're going to put the lift fan to accommodate the backseat EW officer?

[IronDuke99]

I remember having heated discussions, getting on for ten years ago, on why UK should have gone cats and traps and F18 Super Hornet for the new carriers. That were always, supposedly, designed for relatively easy conversion from VSTOL to conventional carriers.

Sadly the RAF was 100% behind F35B -since they believe it will allow pilots to operate from carriers with relatively little training and/or seatime- and, sadly, so was a good deal of the Royal Navy, although back then the idea was a smooth transition from VSTOL Harrier to VSTOL F35B. Of course now UK has had a carrier gap, all be it with air and deck crews working with the USN to retain skills.

I don't doubt F35B will be better than Sea Harrier, since it is a much more modern aircraft. although it worries me that something like pilot ejecting safety, that, obviously has little or nothing whatever to do with computer codes, and a great deal to do with air frame design and aerodynamics is in issue after 15 years of design and testing work...

[Suhiir]

The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well it didn't until the F-4E came along in the fall of 1967. It carried a M61A1 VULCAN six barreled 20mm internal nose mounted cannon. Due to it's initial design mission as a long range radar interceptor it was felt the plane didn't need it. That would change with the lessons learned from the Vietnam War.

To be fair actually the F-4C did eventually carry either the SUU-16/A or SUU-23/A gun pods however they caused drag issues compared to just carrying extra fuel tanks or ordnance. These issues would part of the reason as stated above, for an internal mounted weapons system.

Seems like we just had this discussion within the last couple of years!?!

Anyway...
http://www.aviation-history.com/mcdonnell/f4.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-4-phantom-fighter-bomber/
https://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-4_phantom_ii.pl


I saw some discussion on the next so here's a "where are they now" update.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/30/meanwhile-u-s-marine-corps-av-8b-harrier-jump-jets-continue-to-pound-daesh-in-libya/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

The more complicated a system is the more teething problems it's going to have. Long gone are the days of wooden frames, fabric surfaces, and 80 hp radial engines you could fix with a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.

Look back on the original F-4 Phantom ... it didn't have MGs/Cannon ... a rather glaring oversight in a fighter wouldn't you say?

Well yes and no. That was about technology seemingly overcoming physics and common sense: Missiles get more kills, more certainly, so who needs guns, except when you run out of missiles and/or the enemy is right up your rear and he has a cannon and you do not.

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important? To me the idea that a F35 will never get into a close range 'dog fight' goes against all common sense and history.

Don't agree at all, about the pilot, just saying...

I'm fairly sure that X number of F35's with X number of missiles v Z number of enemy aircraft has been wargamed at a fairly professional level and that, for example if you have 48, very expensive, F35 and the enemy has 150 rather cheaper, but more agile, Soviet/Chinese aircraft, that he does not mind losing, the ending is not always all that good, no matter what the people who make (and make vast amounts of money from) the very, very, expensive F35 say...

[Mobhack]

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important?

The problem with the F-35 and ejection apparently comes from the massive weight of the VR helmet thingy the pilots have to wear. Undergoing rapid rocket acceleration that occurs with ejector seats, the pilot's neck seems to have a severe problem coping with all this and so is likely to be snapped by the massive whiplash effect.

[IronDuke99]

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important?

The problem with the F-35 and ejection apparently comes from the massive weight of the VR helmet thingy the pilots have to wear. Undergoing rapid rocket acceleration that occurs with ejector seats, the pilot's neck seems to have a severe problem coping with all this and so is likely to be snapped by the massive whiplash effect.

So the people making the F35 lost sight of the restrictions the human body places on stuff? Really?

[IronDuke99]

All this reminds me of the early 1960's, when, according to many experts, some of whom the British Government believed, we are told, missiles were going to make all manned aircraft obsolete. I think that probably also relates to F4 Phantoms starting life with no cannon.

It is a bit like "The bomber will always get through" BS that Governments believed in the 1930's...

Humans never seem to learn from history, perhaps because so few of us read it.

[Mobhack]

The pilot escaping a shot down aircraft, is, surely, a fairly basic thing to get right? Or is it overcoming physics and common sense again: Vastly expensive aircraft, the aircraft is so expensive it should be A) Invulnerable and B) the pilot is, finally, worth less than the aircraft so it is not so important?

The problem with the F-35 and ejection apparently comes from the massive weight of the VR helmet thingy the pilots have to wear. Undergoing rapid rocket acceleration that occurs with ejector seats, the pilot's neck seems to have a severe problem coping with all this and so is likely to be snapped by the massive whiplash effect.

So the people making the F35 lost sight of the restrictions the human body places on stuff? Really?

Apparently so.

Then again, stuff that is cool in the design shop sometimes does not work well when exposed to reality. I worked on a Sea King airborne sonobouy system (that rapidly grew into a mission system), and the initial design used a track ball. That worked fine till it was installed in a real helicopter, which vibrates like a wobbly thing. The trackball then produced its own jiggle from the vibes. Had to be replaced with a stiff stick controller.

This VR helmet may have to be shelved if its so deadly, waiting for possible future tech that is light enough to be put in a normal weight flight helmet?. Pilots certainly do not have time to fish out a neck brace from storage somewhere in the cockpit and fit it properly, before pulling the eject handle!.

[IronDuke99]

The problem with the F-35 and ejection apparently comes from the massive weight of the VR helmet thingy the pilots have to wear. Undergoing rapid rocket acceleration that occurs with ejector seats, the pilot's neck seems to have a severe problem coping with all this and so is likely to be snapped by the massive whiplash effect.

So the people making the F35 lost sight of the restrictions the human body places on stuff? Really?

Apparently so.

Then again, stuff that is cool in the design shop sometimes does not work well when exposed to reality. I worked on a Sea King airborne sonobouy system (that rapidly grew into a mission system), and the initial design used a track ball. That worked fine till it was installed in a real helicopter, which vibrates like a wobbly thing. The trackball then produced its own jiggle from the vibes. Had to be replaced with a stiff stick controller.

This VR helmet may have to be shelved if its so deadly, waiting for possible future tech that is light enough to be put in a normal weight flight helmet?. Pilots certainly do not have time to fish out a neck brace from storage somewhere in the cockpit and fit it properly, before pulling the eject handle!.

Ahh, the voice of experience and common sense. Just why I always doubted Lockheed Martin a bit.
I used to be accused of being a McDonald Douglas fan boy by F35 fanboys. I always thought it very strange, being a Englishman and a infantry soldier who served in Northern Ireland and Africa. Like I care all that much about US aircraft makers. Ffs.

[MarkSheppard]

Tracking China

Following the possible IOC of the first Y-20 Airlifters back in June 2016, China now apparently has signed a deal with Antonov to resume An-225 production.

http://www.janes.com/article/63341/china-and-ukraine-agree-to-restart-an-225-production

China and Ukraine have signed an agreement to recommence production of the Antonov An-225 'Cossack' strategic airlifter, media from both countries have reported.

The agreement signed between the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) and Antonov on 30 August gives China access to the aircraft's designs and technologies for the purposes of domestic production, according to China's STCN news organisation and the Ukrainian Business Channel (UBR).

What I think this means: Probability of An-225 #2 being completed as a test bed goes up a bit more; with an all-new Chinese very heavy strategic airlifter (Y-21??) entering service in about eight years, sized more towards C-5 capabilities than An-225.

[Suhiir]

I seem to recall reading someplace that the Russian ejection seat basically immobilizes the pilot when it ejects.
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/ejection-seats/are-russian-ejection-systems-better/903159086001
Perhaps they just need a modified ejection seat that immobilizes the pilots neck, or a lighter helmet display.

[scorpio_rocks]

I seem to recall reading someplace that the Russian ejection seat basically immobilizes the pilot when it ejects.
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/ejection-seats/are-russian-ejection-systems-better/903159086001
Perhaps they just need a modified ejection seat that immobilizes the pilots neck, or a lighter helmet display.

Love the carrier shot where he ejects underwater and lands on the flight deck! :shock:

[DRG]

Love the carrier shot where he ejects underwater and lands on the flight deck! :shock:



It beats being run over by a carrier...........

[IronDuke99]

I seem to recall reading someplace that the Russian ejection seat basically immobilizes the pilot when it ejects.
http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/ejection-seats/are-russian-ejection-systems-better/903159086001
Perhaps they just need a modified ejection seat that immobilizes the pilots neck, or a lighter helmet display.

Interesting video. Fair number of Air Show crashes...

[Suhiir]

Interesting video. Fair number of Air Show crashes...
Probably because at an Air Show everyone and their brother has a camera, whereas a crash in the middle of nowhere ...

[scorpio_rocks]

Interesting video. Fair number of Air Show crashes...
Probably because at an Air Show everyone and their brother has a camera, whereas a crash in the middle of nowhere ...

...that and the fact they tend to be doing difficult manoeuvrers close to the ground so have to bail rather than having space to level it out".

[IronDuke99]

Interesting video. Fair number of Air Show crashes...
Probably because at an Air Show everyone and their brother has a camera, whereas a crash in the middle of nowhere ...

...that and the fact they tend to be doing difficult manoeuvrers close to the ground so have to bail rather than having space to level it out".

All no doubt true. You would think that air show aircraft would be on the top line for maintenance, etc, though. Makes you wonder how many crashes they have 'off camera' perhaps?

[DRG]

That thought occured to me as well.........you don't send second rate pilots to do airshows where everyone watches your every move and you don't send second rate ground crews to service the aircraft......however what you may try to do as a hotshot fighter pilot is push the envelope too far to prove you can do it .....or be told to run it on the edge by your superiors to prove a political point

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I like the Temptations (Motown in general.) one of their hits was a song titled "Ball of Confusion" though the title fits the next, a line from that song "And the band played on... seems to fit the story below better.
http://www.janes.com/article/63907/usaf-grounds-15-f-35s-due-to-avionics-cooling-line-issue

It won't be too long depending on the severity of this issue (Which is more then a minor one.) before NAVAIR will make it's decision to ground the F-35B/C aircraft to conduct inspections of those lines.

This plane is getting noticed again the AERO L-39NG. The current model is making headway in Africa and parts of Asia in sales and general interest where funding is limited. The plane gives these countries a less expensive option which covers the need for a Trainer/Interceptor/Ground Attack aircraft.

Keeping my eye on this one.
http://www.janes.com/article/63912/aero-l-39ng-completes-first-phase-of-development

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

I like the Temptations (Motown in general.) one of their hits was a song titled "Ball of Confusion" though the title fits the next, a line from that song "And the band played on... seems to fit the story below better.
http://www.janes.com/article/63907/usaf-grounds-15-f-35s-due-to-avionics-cooling-line-issue

It won't be too long depending on the severity of this issue (Which is more then a minor one.) before NAVAIR will make it's decision to ground the F-35B/C aircraft to conduct inspections of those lines.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:


This would be comical if the bloody thing was not so expensive, etc...

[shahadi]

I like the Temptations (Motown in general.) one of their hits was a song titled "Ball of Confusion" though the title fits the next, a line from that song "And the band played on... seems to fit the story below better.
http://www.janes.com/article/63907/usaf-grounds-15-f-35s-due-to-avionics-cooling-line-issue

It won't be too long depending on the severity of this issue (Which is more then a minor one.) before NAVAIR will make it's decision to ground the F-35B/C aircraft to conduct inspections of those lines.


Excellent choice of oldies capt.

I was not able to discern from the reading if the issue is design or maintenance, where the maintenance contractor did not use parts to specification.

=====

[Suhiir]

Excellent choice of oldies capt.

I was not able to discern from the reading if the issue is design or maintenance, where the maintenance contractor did not use parts to specification.

=====
Apparently some wiring from has an issue. It seems not all f-35's are affected, just the ones that used a particular batch faulty of wiring. Probably a manufacturing fault rather then intentional sub-quality parts.

[Suhiir]

Update on the F-35 ejection seat issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7-3EUXC_w

[IronDuke99]

Update on the F-35 ejection seat issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7-3EUXC_w

Interesting but perhaps, like all that series of videos, a bit propagandaish...

[shahadi]

Update on the F-35 ejection seat issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s7-3EUXC_w

Interesting but perhaps, like all that series of videos, a bit propagandaish...

I'm inclined to agree with IronDuke99, "...a bit propagandaish."

I would prefer to know who published the video, although Martin Baker the mfgr of the ejection seat is listed as a source.

I don't know of any 135 pound pilots. Anyone know the Air Force or Navy physical requirements?

As for missile kills in SE Asia, the document sources describes missile kills while not addressing gun kills or the low ratio of 2:1 US vs Vietnamese engagements that inarguably was attributed to lack of dog fighting training.

Two quotes:

The F-4 was brought into the Air Force inventory for the air superiority role without a gun, but by the onset of the Vietnam War the fighter employed the M-61 Gatling gun carried externally in the SUU-16 pod.

And:

During the 1972 campaign, fifty-percent of the kills were made with guns. However, it was standard procedure to fire missiles as a deterrent, this tended to bias the statistical base on the relative effectiveness of missiles for this time period.Sparrow (AIM-7) long-range air-to-air missile


Source:
http://www.afarmamentmuseum.com/vietnamwar.html

I'd venture to say Lockheed Martin public relations contracted this Dragon029 to produce these so-called myth busters.

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The only real difference would be USN pilots will of course have to meet carrier deck quals, it's not enough to just land on an airfield (Naval Air Station)which they will do of course when the squadron isn't deployed. Physical standards should be about the same, below are the current USAF one's...

1. What are the vision requirements if I hope to be an Air Force Pilot?

Pilots must have normal color vision, near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction, distance visual acuity of no worse than 20/70 in each eye correctable to 20/20 and meet other refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements. Corrective eye surgery may also disqualify applicants for pilot or other specific roles.

In addition to vision requirements, becoming an Air Force Pilot requires you to meet strict physical, medical and academic requirements. A final determination on your eligibility will be determined by working with a recruiter through the full application process.

2. What are the general qualifications to fly?

Becoming an Air Force Pilot requires you to meet strict physical, medical, vision and academic requirements. Applicants must achieve qualifying scores on the AFOQT exam, meet all requirements and pass a selection board prior to age 28. A final determination on your eligibility will be reached by working with a recruiter through the full application process.

Generally speaking, pilot candidates must:

Have a standing height of 64–77 inches and sitting height of 34–40 inches.
Meet Air Force weight and physical conditioning requirements. Have no history of hay fever, asthma or allergies after age 12.
Have normal color vision with near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction and distance visual acuity of no worse than 20/70 in each eye, correctable to 20/20.
Meet refraction, accommodation and astigmatism requirements—corrective eye surgery could be a disqualifier
Have or be within 365 days of receiving a baccalaureate degree (BA or BS) in any major with a GPA of at least 2.5.

Note that if you have prior flight time, this is a plus in being considered for a Pilot/Combat Systems Officer (CSO) assignment.

3. What are the height and weight requirements to join the Air Force?

Air Force careers are often physically demanding. We maintain strict height and weight requirements throughout your career. If you have attained full-grown height and are too short or too tall to meet our requirements, there is no possible recourse. You can, however, manage your weight to meet our requirements. Learn more about Air Force height and weight requirements. Applicants should check with their local Air Force Recruiter for the requirements and must meet these requirements in order to apply for the Air Force.

Note that applicants must be a minimum of five pounds under their max weight. If the maximum weight for your height is 190 pounds, you must be 185 pounds or less. If an applicant is within five pounds of the maximum weight or over their maximum weight and has a muscular build, they may be authorized to apply. For advice regarding your specific situation, talk to your local recruiter.


Well as recently measured for my body armor, I meet the height and sitting height (Does not include your butt.) standards @ 75" and 36" (I'm torso long)I can qualify. The rest is another story!?! By example I fall between medium to large boned/75"/or 190.5cm/250lbs/or 17.85 stone. By current military standards for my height I should not weigh more than 215lbs/or 15.35 stone.

Though I've lost around 30lbs and am keeping it off over the last 16 months, I'll just say I haven't weighed that much (215) since I played "European" Football in college.

I in my career saw about three different standards while in for Ht./Wt. The above example came about ~3yrs after I retired in 2002. It is still used today with some minor variation. The only exception to all this, is in the USMC (And I've seen this a few times.) where a Marine will fully meet all physical requirements but, due to their uniform appearance fail to meet the standards.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I forgot to add all the information I posted in the last came from FAQ's from this website. Didn't want anyone to think "I pulled it out of the thin air" or for that matter anywhere else, have to get ready for work and "Matthew" and it looks like from the latest models he's going to be a real SOB!!
https://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/pilot?gclid=CMej-oK2xs8CFZMvgQod-TUBCA&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CJyBmoO2xs8CFcscgQod1vsJuQ

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Oh don't get me wrong I know those vids are paid propaganda, but they still provide useful (if slanted) information.

As to 135# or less pilots, the more females that get into aviation the more this will come up.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This was a very useful website for the news side of things but more importantly because it covers the full range of MiG aircraft from the beginning (1940 MiG-1) in a very detailed manner. As I've recovered this from a much earlier post for my Jets/Planes system folder, I thought why not re-post it here as well. I think some of you would find it interesting. I think you'll figure out who's behind the website but, again no "hoopla" just "the straight dope" is presented.
http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/history/

Enjoy!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

That link throws up a great big nasty red warning screen for me
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14483&stc=1&d=1479096706

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It came up clean twice on mine before this posting though, last night when I found this one I had two other "safe" sites from Russian sources at the time of posting that, last night my current system blocked them as Malicious Software.

All I can say is go with your "gut", I used to use "Defender" and "Security Essentials (SE)" from MS however I got away from them as I had virus intrusions with both one which led to a system crash (My old XP PC with Defender.). I learned my lesson at first, both were backed by top rated compatible freeware software as well. Then I'd put the MS products to the background and upgraded to the AVASTI security suite but their independent lab test results started to drop off. I've been using Bitdefender Total Security now for about 4yrs. The 2017 suite is the only one currently offering "Ransomware Protection."

Another reason for the switch was the .mil site servers would block access from hotmail accounts because of the weak security protocols MS had in place for several years.

The current MS Security Essentials Anti Virus is the best they've ever had to date. That being said and everyone knows how I "look into things" I'm very happy where I'm at. The independent test lab results are very good in my case.

I've said several times out here I'm not the software/programmer type, but security is after all security whether it's physical or otherwise-enough said.

Do your research, I do recommend paying for a anti-virus protection suite based on independent lab testing which places like PC World, PC Mag and CNET etc. etc. refer to in their recommendations.

NEVER put "All your eggs in one basket.", Find yourself a strong compatible anti-virus freeware to back up your system currently AVIRA, AVG, AVASTI (Getting back in the game again with top ranked tested products.) and a couple of others offer a lot of features.

Again make sure this software is compatible to your OS and your current protection program, if not, in order of degrees your computer will run slow, you can get conflicting reports, Blue screen (Happened to me once way back.) and finally the software can conflict with each other to the point your system is less protected or in rare cases NOT AT ALL PROTECTED.

Know how your security software works, the risk will always be there sometimes the box will come up because it's a software certificate issue to malicious software detected or in my case an attack has been blocked. I'll see around 3000 blocked events in a week for various reasons that my weekly/or real-time security report breaks down.

Like the game, make yourself safe and follow your instincts this is not an area I choose to "blow off" with the amount of increased/increasing hacker activity we're seeing over the last few years now.

Don (Everyone) sorry for this but this is a topic I take very seriously. I don't want to see anyone hurt financially or otherwise because they weren't properly protected.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Well I use NOD32 and Malwarebytes on the Edge browser (Win 10) and I get the exact same screen DRG does.

[scorpio_rocks]

Firefox, Kaspersky, Win 10, etc - I see the site no problem

[DRG]

FWIW...........It's OK for me today...

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just a little news:

Finland: Will start to phase out it's F/A-18C/D's in 2025. Seeking new options that might or might get into the game.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/finland-receives-five-responses-for-hx-fighter-procu-431832/

India: Is the only country left to fly the Sepecat JAGUAR. It would appear they intend to keep it that for sometime to come with a major upgrade package being installed. These aircraft were designed primarily for the ground attack role a mission greatly enhanced by the upgrade which the first three have already reached IOC.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ugraded-jaguar-achieves-indian-ioc-431779/

Sweden: How do you arguably make the best 4th GEN+ fighter better and more appealing to current and potential new buyers? Simply you make a bold business decision and add future technologies now. And yes this fighter is that good. It is generally considered the most technically capable cost effective fighter in the world.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-e-flight-slips-into-2017-as-saab-puts-softwar-431790/

Switzerland: MOD requesting "emergency" funding to maintain it's F/A-18C/D and F-5 current fleet. Also seeks new fighter being operational by 2025.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/switzerland-requests-swfr10-million-to-support-fight-431755/

8+ hours to go, the rest of you have a great weekend!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

This was a very useful website for the news side of things but more importantly because it covers the full range of MiG aircraft from the beginning (1940 MiG-1) in a very detailed manner.

You're better off buying Yefim Gordon's books on Russian Aircraft.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Mark though I really appreciate the information on the book, I have to at the same time think in game terms out here, which is to say, does a particular site provide me with all the data PLUS a little more to get, improve upon or get deleted a particular piece of equipment entered into a game. Some know that I've "tracked" equipment literally for years out here and my past submissions are littered with them, also this goes for the research side of things I.E. from a simple question presented to the forum about the status of the French 105mm which took about three years to resolve with Don. It would also lead to changes in the French and a couple of other countries in some minor changes to other related artillery units, the "rabbit hole".

So please know this, I spend more time keeping track of my own sources than I do equipment, I constantly am looking for consistency in the data from my all sources as compared against each other and a couple I keep in my "hip pocket" if you will. Many times over the years Don has asked how I feel about that source or another (And I appreciate it.) and sometimes we go with it, hold off on it and rarely not pursue the issue knowing I'm watching (Or he's watching.) if any changes occur to warrant me resubmitting or you find it in the next or future released patch from you know who.

Equipment just changes to quickly, I only own one book on equipment in my library on the matter and it's on WWII aircraft I've had since I can't remember-I guess it reminds that we must not forgot the past and learn from it, but, it hasn't changed. These websites are more fluid and current a book on equipment would be an anchor if you will to what I do here. And you have to admit I cover a lot of areas (Maybe too many.) and all the countries I can as they pop up and have even handled requests for research and submission of equipment from forum members (All are in and thank you again for those.). As you can see it gets complicated and I need to find a "middle ground" somewhere because this will be my 4th year I haven't submitted something of any length and I don't like it.

I do love my books finishing one on the 1916 Easter Rising I got while in Dublin and my next will be one on the battle of Waterloo and Wellington, while in Dublin I saw the Wellington Monument (It is reopened to the public.) to him and the troops that fought it. While looking at that monument (And the tallest obelisk in Europe and tallest 3-sided one in the world.) I wondered why he would design it (The original one.) and put it into the Capital city of Ireland when he supposedly disliked his own Irish background and country. But it was Britain's Ireland then and maybe he was sending his own message too them? But that's what a book is to me the start of an adventure and hopefully not a chore.

I owed you more than a thanks or a whatever (God I hate that term!). Besides books cost money and the one's I'd want from my military background would cost a fortune every year to buy and update but, that's John's department and the fund raising ain't worked out to this point!?! And can you imagine how annoying I'd be to Don!?! He's already pulled enough hair out of his head already because of me, I'll just let'em keep whats left.

So to get why the threads here...So what does it take to develop your own stealth fighter program? The next should provide some insight. Consider this an update because you're right been tracking it almost from the start.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/kf-x-paper-pushing-or-peer-fighter-program-010647/

The next shows where the F-35 stands and why those F-35A models were grounded this past September.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike-fighter-program-07501/

A little more "cover" from my last post in this thread.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/super-hornet-fighter-family-myp-iii-2010-2013-contracts-06392/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/


Sorry to the rest of you but the man deserved a better response and one I'd give to anyone out here under the same circumstances on a matter of personal importance to me.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

The F-35 link above does not seem to be working?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Your good. They updated the one from the 28th with one from the 29th. When they do that, and the article is locked out (Red Padlock.) it drops the previous one into the text so that only paid subscribers can access the full document. They're good but not JANE's good to where I'd pay for it. It's still a good source but for major programs it's getting harder and forces me to look elsewhere for "hot" issues when all I can access is the update where Israel is upping their buy to 50 F-35 fighters.

What I posted was the update concerning a sub contractor having manufacturing issues in the cooling parts related to a key electrical suite which caused the grounding of many F-35A fighters this past summer. Also another milestone has been reached and it looks like the USAF will probably get more F-35A fighters.

So again "red padlock" you'll only be able to read the update. Eventually they will unlock the story and when that happens it's "pad of paper & pen time" and take notes on any new data I didn't already have.

Here's a supplement for the F-35...
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newslockheed-wins-72bn-f-35-lightning-ii-lot-10-production-contract-5681234

And while I'm at it I've been watching this one for many years as well, the real big deal here is the AESA radar.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newslockheed-wins-12bn-contract-for-south-korean-f-16-aircraft-upgrades-5677199

So because China been "misbehaving" the above country will get those F-16 fighters brought up to the F-16V platform which is the most advanced version of the F-16. China blew it here (Though N. Korea doesn't get off lightly either.) Because our Congress for years has blocked any significant improvements to these F-16's so as not to upset China.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16v-viper-fighting-falcon-multi-role-fighter/
http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2016/Meet-the-F-16V.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a17874/f-16v-first-flight/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

With reference to STOVL F-35B. I think we can consider it fairly safe not to be cancelled now, given the new US Secretary of Defense is a Marine and the USMC really want that aircraft, alongside the RN Fleet Air Arm.

Wonder what Suhiir thinks of him?

[Suhiir]

Wonder what Suhiir thinks of him?
Don't know anything about him other then what I read.

I was with 2nd MarDiv during Gulf I, Mattis commanded 1st MarDiv, so all I know is when the reserve units were activated it was decided to transfer most of the active duty MP's to 1st MarDiv and 2nd MarDiv got the activated reserve MP's. A few of us in specialized roles were retained in 2nd MarDiv; the CID folks (the US Navy/USMC equivalent of a police detective) , myself as a counter-terrorist specialist with an extensive background in NBC, and a couple others I don't recall.
As it turned out the reserve MP's had better training/background in convoy escort and POW handling then the active duty folks. Not too surprising as the active duty folks spend very little time training and concentrate almost entirely on law enforcement.

I do believe this is the first time the Secretary of defense has ever been a former Marine tho.

[IronDuke99]

Hopefully it will be a case of 'Semper Fi'. Saw him answering questions from assorted US Marines on a USMC YouTube channel (easy enough to find) and from that he came across as professional, straight talking, yet thoughtful, 'Gung ho' but with a good brain if you like. I rather liked him. Reminded me a bit of my Grandfather who was also a professional soldier (inter war on North West Frontier of India and then WWII) although my granddad only reached the giddy heights of CSM, although senior NCO's are the actual backbone of any military force.

Have to say I wish Great Britain could have a Minister of Defence like this man, someone who knew the military from the inside.

[Suhiir]

I know it may sound a bit strange but the whole time I was in I never met anyone Colonel or above, or a Sgt Major that I ever had any issues with, and very few light Colonels or 1st Sgts (like 1 or 2 each) that struck me as "unworthy". So being a former General and a division commander (vice a purely staff type) I'll assume he's competent until I see otherwise.

While the senor NCO's definitely keep things operating on a day-to-day basis it's the long-term planning and equipment acquisition senior officers do that fosters a military force effectiveness and reputation in the long run.

[DRG]

Mattis is described in this article as being a" Marine's Marine"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-james-mad-dog-mattis-7-memorable-quotes/

I like him. He sounds like me.......

I may add a quote or two to the game :D

Don

[Suhiir]

Mattis is described in this article as being a" Marine's Marine"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gen-james-mad-dog-mattis-7-memorable-quotes/

I like him. He sounds like me.......

I may add a quote or two to the game :D

Don
Yeah, made it a point to read up on him a bit ... looks pretty good, take a look at this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIJKQRb53o

He definitely seems to know the Mid East and it's issues.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

To say I've not been a fan of the F-35 would at times, be an understatement. I've been watching and posting on the project from the start and I feel good or bad I've been fair in the posting the "news" concerning this project. That being said I'm not very happy about some of the conclusions the following have come to especially, as what it means potentially to the air crew flying them. The sources are legitimate and surprising as to where it comes from and by whom. They patch together the many various data points I've already posted and revealed some "tidbits" that to some degree I'm somewhat surprised by. I've taken from Ref. 1, the highlighted "memo" by Dr. Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Ref. 2 and Senator John McCain's memo to the SECDEF Mr. Ashton Carter Ref. 3. All other highlighted words or phases are a click away for further reading. I would say given this recent information, the A-10 might just be sticking around a little longer beyond games end.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/178789/pentagon%E2%80%99s-gilmore-warns-f_35-capabilities-are-in-jeopardy.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3213376-DOT-amp-E-Concerns-Regarding-JSF-Progress-and.html
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=A2CEF2C0-CC09-464B-A07D-5D157784085F

I need to do a better job of following my resources I guess.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I'll be very curious to see what happens when Trump and (probably) Mattis get in place. Obviously it will (should) take a bit of time for them to find out what's going on and formulate a strategy. I'm hoping defense contractors actually start being held accountable rather then just getting more money tossed at them as has been happening more and more often in recent years.

Of course there's also the problem of the DOD having reasonable expectations when it comes to new weapons systems ... sometimes I start to wonder in growing up watching Star Trek/Wars has led to unreasonable expectations.

[IronDuke99]

Looking at this from a British point of view (and UK has actually put a lot of money into F-35)

I see an aircraft that is vital to the new Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers, because those carriers, although second in size only to USN Carriers, do not have cats and traps.

I see an aircraft that is not dedicated to the RN Fleet Air Arm, as it should be, but instead will be under at least partly RAF control (and the RAF see F-35B as a Tornado replacement for some reason).

Cannot help thinking that my views back in the early 2000's (make both the new British Carriers cats and traps and buy Super Hornet but with the option to also buy Rafale, and, maybe, later down the track F-35C) would have been better than the position now.

UK making 70,000 ton Carriers STOVL only ever really made (some) sense if their had been a smooth transfer from Harrier to F-35, as was the original plan back in the 90's. FAA Sea Harrier has been gone for years now and so have all Harriers from British service, due to an RAF (who had been given control of the British 'joint' Harrier force) choice to scrap them.

So why build very large carriers and make them carry STOVL F-35B a aircraft that has less range, less internal weapons capacity (and you only keep the limited F-35 stealth capacity with internal weapons) and less agility than F-35C, will cost more per unit to buy and will inevitably require more maintenance (because it has an extra dirty great heavy 'lift' fan, that is entirely useless to the aircraft except in landing, or taking off vertically, which has no real use in actual ops).

HMS Queen Elizabeth (named after Elizabeth I of defeat of the Spanish Armada fame) Does sea trails next year, but is unlikely to have a single fixed wing jet aboard before 2020 and will not have even a very modest 24 F-35B air group much before 2023 (the plan is, in a major conflict this would rise to at least 36 fixed wing aircraft). Assuming that is the RAF cooperates...

The whole thing strikes me as a hugely expensive mess, that passed by while most attention was on fighting expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we did not bloody win in any case.

[Suhiir]

I agree the F-35B is needed as a replacement for the Harrier, the F-35C is also very useful as an attack aircraft. The F-18E/F seems to be perfectly adequate as an air superiority aircraft. Tho the A-10 is getting a bit long in the tooth it's still a fine ground support platform. And the F-15E seems to fill the USAF needs for a "resistant to enemy air defense systems" attack plane. So I'm not really sure why the USAF needs the F-35A, it may be a simple case of it having been shoved down their throats.

The question is ... how much would eliminating the F-35A and keeping the B and C help? If at all?

[IronDuke99]

I am not sure any air force needs almost any new aircraft 'forcing down their throats'. It is just new and shiny and sure I may be being a little biased against air forces.

F-35 is often sold because of its, limited, stealth. Radar is catching up with stealth, just like any other military competition (gun v armour, for example).

F-35B is pretty vital to the Royal Navy right now, but I wish to hell it was not.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Gotta be quick back to the "grind" later this afternoon. All this I've posted on in here.

1) QE Carriers "Thank God" will be multi-decked capable if required with the HMS Prince of Wales though I can't remember if they got it done with the Queen Elizabeth or it'll be retro-fitted (Has?).

2) Current A-10 fleet has had significant airframe and wing structural work done on it. Also new avionics suite (Which includes defensive upgrades as well.) plus new cockpit suite to modernize it, and tie into the above items as well as increase it's offensive capabilities in targeting etc. (I.E. Laser RF) plus the targeting pods that have for sometime now include defensive capabilities as well.

3) F-15E/SE without a doubt our best all around fighter/fighter bomber to include deep penetration ops which it was designed for.

4) Latest F-16 version also much improved over all previous versions if the exception of maybe the last possibly two previous versions.

5) FA-18E/F also seeing major upgrades to include FA-18/C/D being brought up to the E/F+ standard if you will.

6) F-22 also has had and is continuing to be updated as well. As the USAF has stated the F-35 would be irrelevant without the F-22. That's an eye opener.

7) Can you figure out why we're upgrading those USN/USAF planes? Well lets just say "It's all those delays..." caused by the F-35 program.

It's all in here already.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[IronDuke99]

1) QE Carriers "Thank God" will be multi-decked capable if required with the HMS Prince of Wales though I can't remember if they got it done with the Queen Elizabeth or it'll be retro-fitted (Has?).


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

If by "multi-deck capable" you mean able to launch and land standard Carrier aircraft such as F18 Super Hornet, sadly you are wrong. At one stage the British Government decided to fit 'cats and traps' To the second Carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, but despite the fact that we were told that the QE Carrier design was "adaptable" to conventional cats and traps, BAE came out with an enormous cost to do so (surprise, surprise) and the Government changed their mind again.

For Fixed wing aircraft the entire British Carrier programme (20 years in the making) is entirely dependent on F-35B...

[DRG]

Interesting........

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/russian-jets-keep-crashing-%E2%80%94-and-it-may-be-an-aircraft-carrier%E2%80%99s-fault/ar-AAlbrgh

[IronDuke99]

You can launch some conventional aircraft off a carrier with a ramp, trouble is they cannot carry all that much weight in terms of fuel and weapons.

To land them on again you need arrestor wires.

F-35B is going to use a 'rolling landing' so it can bring back unexpended munitions (often very expensive these days). That means, I would guess, that the QE Carriers will need some kind of barrier system, to avoid what could be very, very, expensive accidents...

I suspect the Russian carrier problems are as much about lack of experience and practice as anything else. The RN has got air and deck crews working with the USN and USMC to keep up skills and has plenty of officers and men with Carrier experience from the Invincible class ships.
The last of which, HMS Illustrious, is about to head to Turkey for scrapping sadly, would have been nice to keep her as a Museum ship.

[Suhiir]

6) F-22 also has had and is continuing to be updated as well. As the USAF has stated the F-35 would be irrelevant without the F-22. That's an eye opener.

Pat
Not really.
The F-35 was designed and is intended to be primarily a ground support/naval attack aircraft NOT a "fighter". The A-10 sucks as a fighter too ... so I guess it's a useless aircraft?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I guess I'm all "hosed up" about the F-22 based on the previous response, but didn't I mention I posted on this and the other topics over the years in my post? I don't know due to the vagueness of that response concerning what I posted concerning the F-22 is the issue. So...

1) F-35 is irrelevant without the F-22:
https://theaviationist.com/2014/02/04/f-35-needs-f-22-acc-says/
It's good to know the memory is not too far gone-yet!! ;)

2) Now about those ongoing upgrades to the F-22 still on track pretty much as a hurdle was just cleared. Also from ref. 2 (And you better note the date of it-please!! :D) the weapons set has been increased and I think by now the "Usefulness in small Wars..." has clearly been demonstrated.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-22-raptor-capabilities-and-controversies-019069/
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/how-the-improved-f-22-trains-for-future-wars-with-f-35s

USAF General Data Package but, before you use this package, you MUST read "Primary Function:" data point:
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104506/f-22-raptor.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii-conventional-takeoff-and-landing-variant.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104501/f-15-eagle.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104499/f-15e-strike-eagle.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104490/a-10-thunderbolt-ii.aspx

Note the difference in the F-15 vs. F-15SE "Primary Function" as again defined by the USAF. The A-10 seems to be accomplishing it's mission pretty well in Syria and Iraq as "defined" by the USAF.

I think it should be clear to anyone that the F-35 is a fighter plane with land attack capability, hence the name, The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) not close Air Support Fighter etc. etc. All you need to do is see what planes it designed to replace for the USAF the F-16 and at some point the A-10 maybe, because Congress has already mandated to the USAF that they will find a more mission capable plane for that role.

For the USN/USMC that would be the F/A-18 fleet. We have no F-22 to escort our F-35 MR Fighters into combat. They will have to provide CAP for the carrier battle-group or invasion force, and they'll be expected to fight their way into or out of an assigned target package as the F-15SE does now without a combat loss with around 99 kills that would be enemy fighters of course. I can ensure you that'll pretty much be the same for the F-35A if not going after a very high value target where the F-22 will be riding shotgun.

Concerning the UK carriers last I heard was they've designed them so the ski jump could be removed with the infrastructure in place for a catapult system and adding re-enforced decking to support conventional flight ops.

Also haven't heard much since this past Summer concerning taking one of the carriers and modifying it to support helicopter assault mission as well. What news of this?

A little something on a fine class of carrier in it's day and a good ship meets a sad end. Better to have used it as an artificial reef than to be scrapped.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-38224115
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/dec/07/illustrious-farewell-aircraft-carrier-leaves-port-bound-for-scrapyard

Never did make to Portsmouth, that got ruined for us by the Soviets. Too bad!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

:) But we all know the USAF as an institution doesn't like ground support in the first place ... tho the USAF pilots that fly such aircraft generally do. :)

The US Navy has some need for "battlefield introduction" and "deep strike" aircraft, thus are planning to keep the F-18E/F around to escort it's F-35C's as F-22s aren't carrier capable.

Tho frequently pressed into service for the above missions the USMC isn't all that interested in them, that sort of thing is the USAF/USNs job. The USMC is primarily interested in battefield close air support and operating from less then optimal airfields/carriers. I'm not convinced the replacement of F-18E/Fs in the USMC with F-35Cs is the best idea, but I never wore stars on my collar so maybe I'm missing something.

[IronDuke99]

The best place to keep up to date with everything about the Royal Navy including the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers:

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/

A search on that site will give you all the latest news.

[Suhiir]

Good documentary on the Harrier and the USMC perspective on close air support.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrajzZICMI

[IronDuke99]

The latest official info on F-35...

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/

Midway down under DOD Programs

It is a long list of very varied problems, from this aircraft that seems to have been under development for such a very long time... I will be amazed if this aircraft is anything like fully operation much before 2022/23.

[shahadi]

USMC will deploy a F-35B squadron to Japan. The first F-35B to be forward based.

“'The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform,' said 3rd MAW in a statement."

Find the full article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

=====

[IronDuke99]

USMC will deploy a F-35B squadron to Japan. The first F-35B to be forward based.

“'The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform,' said 3rd MAW in a statement."

Find the full article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

=====



And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft.

I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested).

Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one...

[shahadi]

USMC will deploy a F-35B squadron to Japan. The first F-35B to be forward based.

“'The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform,' said 3rd MAW in a statement."

Find the full article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

=====


And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft.

I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested).

Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one...

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====

[IronDuke99]

USMC will deploy a F-35B squadron to Japan. The first F-35B to be forward based.

“'The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform,' said 3rd MAW in a statement."

Find the full article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

=====


And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft.

I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested).

Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one...

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====


Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped.

I don't see Trump scrapping it, too much money already spent, including by UK who is the only tier 1 partner on the aircraft, and if you scrap it the US (and other western nations) are left with no aircraft at all to replace the F15's and F16's.

Have to say I was never a fan of the VSTOL F-35B, wish the Brits had gone cats and traps and Super Hornet myself. It never made real sense to me to go STOVL on 70,000 ton Aircraft Carriers, especially once there was going to be a significant gap in service between Harrier ending (thanks RAF) and F-35B starting (Aircraft the RAF is highly reluctant to allow the RN Fleet Air Arm much control of)

Of course the RAF were very against cats and traps because you have to train hard and often to do that, and they seem to think you will not have to to use F-35B (with a 'rolling landing') from a carrier at sea. We shall see...

[shahadi]

And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft.

I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested).

Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one...

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====


Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped.

I don't see Trump scrapping it, too much money already spent, including by UK who is the only tier 1 partner on the aircraft, and if you scrap it the US (and other western nations) are left with no aircraft at all to replace the F15's and F16's.

Have to say I was never a fan of the VSTOL F-35B, wish the Brits had gone cats and traps and Super Hornet myself. It never made real sense to me to go STOVL on 70,000 ton Aircraft Carriers, especially once there was going to be a significant gap in service between Harrier ending (thanks RAF) and F-35B starting (Aircraft the RAF is highly reluctant to allow the RN Fleet Air Arm much control of)

Of course the RAF were very against cats and traps because you have to train hard and often to do that, and they seem to think you will not have to to use F-35B (with a 'rolling landing') from a carrier at sea. We shall see...

The Royal Navy is in a very hard place if she intends to use the F-35B for fleet defence as the STOVL plane is not an air superiority fighter, as the F-35C could be loaded out to do so but the Royal Navy does not have cat and trap boats.

Trump won't or cannot kill the F-35 but as with the Raptor the F-35 could be dramatically reduced. His pledge for a 350 ship navy may stay the Navy until Boeing delivers on the FA/XX super super hornet.

The USAF still has the best air superiority fighter in the Raptor.

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

F-35 stories from 16 Dec. 2016 to now - top to bottom. Only need this one source for these stories.

1) Israel: 6 days to win a war but it takes that long to fly their first two F-35I fighters there. Why? Must've been flying in "Long Distance Runaround (LRD)" ;) operational mode.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/179654/unanswered-questions-about-the-f_35%E2%80%99s-six_day-flight-to-israel.html

2) Everything's about money.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/179781/the-latest-official-f_35-prices-are-bogus.html

3) A "twitter who tweeted" wonder from whom, but, seems to like the Super Hornet!?!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/179825/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-super-hornet-alternative-to-f_35.html

4) There'll be a "Rumble in the Desert" well in the skies over it anyway.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/180015/.html

5) Navy pilots see "stars" happened in 2014 (I guess we better update our comms in the USN also!) and it's still an ongoing issue.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/180020/.html

6) Cancel, cancel, cancel this will probably get as close as it will come-maybe.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/180030/more-calls-for-cancellation-of-the-f_35-program.html

7) It was really a classified test of the fire suppression system, trust me -really!!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/180097/.html

The rest are from today...

8) Australia it's bombs away!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/180201/australian-f_35a-releases-its-first-weapon%2C-a-paveway-ii.html

9) Delays and more delays, this is a very controversial software system in which some people are asking why are they flying without this being fixed?
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/180207/f_35%E2%80%99s-alis-software-delayed-six-more-months.html

10) HEeREes Johnny...Sorry, that'll be our 200th F-35!! :party:, apparently though some might prefer to bring this to the party :viking: (Fire might've been to controversial?!?) while they try to fix all these software issues maybe I can help :typing: :pc: :smash:, I did say maybe!?!

That's the latest and greatest. Have a great day! I will because "Everyday at the Bay" is a GREAT DAY! That'd be work don't ya know.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

It's really a matter of the F-35B replacing the Harrier.

Even if it's not up to it's potential (real or imagined) it's still and improvement over the Harrier and it's a new aircraft, not one suffering from an old airframe and a critical shortage of parts for maintenance.

Once again I remind people, the F-35 was never designed or intended to be an air superiority aircraft, while the UK Fleet Air Arm will press it into that role, and it will, again, be an improvement over the Harrier, to compare it to the F-22 or any other air superiority aircraft is just plain stupid. Will it have better survivability vs air superiority aircraft then the Harrier or A-10? Yes ... then it's an improvement.

[shahadi]

It's really a matter of the F-35B replacing the Harrier.

Even if it's not up to it's potential (real or imagined) it's still and improvement over the Harrier and it's a new aircraft, not one suffering from an old airframe and a critical shortage of parts for maintenance.

Once again I remind people, the F-35 was never designed or intended to be an air superiority aircraft, while the UK Fleet Air Arm will press it into that role, and it will, again, be an improvement over the Harrier, to compare it to the F-22 or any other air superiority aircraft is just plain stupid. Will it have better survivability vs air superiority aircraft then the Harrier or A-10? Yes ... then it's an improvement.

The Royal Navy may well re-think cat/trap carriers and the F-35B may force her to put to sea American carriers. She will need truely capable fighters to do CAP and fleet defense not souped up Harriers.

No one is comparing the pitiful F-35B to the Raptor. Just pointing out the USAF has Raptors in the event congress stunts the F-35A. The Navy has the Super Hornet and Boeing is close to deliver the much anticipated Super Super Hornet. The USMC may shug along with an F-35B as long as her boats remain under the CAP of the Navy, where the jar heads belong. Or, the Marines may come to their senses and tasks helos with CAS until a F-35B is worked out.

No one is comparing the Raptor to the F-35B. I'm not.

=====

[IronDuke99]

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====


Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped.

I don't see Trump scrapping it, too much money already spent, including by UK who is the only tier 1 partner on the aircraft, and if you scrap it the US (and other western nations) are left with no aircraft at all to replace the F15's and F16's.

Have to say I was never a fan of the VSTOL F-35B, wish the Brits had gone cats and traps and Super Hornet myself. It never made real sense to me to go STOVL on 70,000 ton Aircraft Carriers, especially once there was going to be a significant gap in service between Harrier ending (thanks RAF) and F-35B starting (Aircraft the RAF is highly reluctant to allow the RN Fleet Air Arm much control of)

Of course the RAF were very against cats and traps because you have to train hard and often to do that, and they seem to think you will not have to to use F-35B (with a 'rolling landing') from a carrier at sea. We shall see...

The Royal Navy is in a very hard place if she intends to use the F-35B for fleet defence as the STOVL plane is not an air superiority fighter, as the F-35C could be loaded out to do so but the Royal Navy does not have cat and trap boats.

Trump won't or cannot kill the F-35 but as with the Raptor the F-35 could be dramatically reduced. His pledge for a 350 ship navy may stay the Navy until Boeing delivers on the FA/XX super super hornet.

The USAF still has the best air superiority fighter in the Raptor.

=====


If you think the RN is in a very hard place in that event I don't know what place you think she has been in for the past few and next few years, ie, no carriers, no fixed wing aircraft?

Some in the RAF might agree with you about F-35B, I have seen a former senior RAF officer argue that the Type 45 Air Defence destroyer is all that is needed (I kid you not). This from a Service that last shot down an enemy some time in the late 1940's. (Last RAF air to air kill was 1946 or 48 depending on who you believe, all later British Air to Air kills have been RN Fleet Air Arm). Nope I'm not a big fan of senior RAF officers, and never have been...

And like the USAF, the RAF has a better air superiority fighter in the Typhoon. Great when the fleet is in reach of land based air cover, but historically, Air Forces have not been at all successful in providing air cover for fleets, and, after all, the mobility of the aircraft carrier, and the lack of needing a, vulnerable, fixed, land base are a major reason for having them at all...

[Suhiir]

That's really the problem.

Land based air is perfectly fine for home or pre-existing foreign base defense but if you want to be able to project power into and across the worlds oceans you need carriers. Even the minimal assets the UK had available for the Falklands were sufficient and the liberation of the islands would have been impossible without them.

Who you're fighting and where determines how much, if any, fleet air you need.

[IronDuke99]

That's really the problem.

Land based air is perfectly fine for home or pre-existing foreign base defense but if you want to be able to project power into and across the worlds oceans you need carriers. Even the minimal assets the UK had available for the Falklands were sufficient and the liberation of the islands would have been impossible without them.

Who you're fighting and where determines how much, if any, fleet air you need.

Exactly.

[IronDuke99]

I don't agree with everything said in this article.

(In particular it does not address the potential conflicts of mainly RAF 'owned' aircraft operating from RN carriers).

F-35B the right choice and the only choice for the Royal Navy

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/f-35b-the-right-choice-and-the-only-choice-for-the-royal-navy/

[shahadi]

I don't agree with everything said in this article.

(In particular it does not address the potential conflicts of mainly RAF 'owned' aircraft operating from RN carriers).

F-35B the right choice and the only choice for the Royal Navy

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/f-35b-the-right-choice-and-the-only-choice-for-the-royal-navy/

Do we know why the USN contines to favor the Super Hornet over the F-35C?

=====

[shahadi]

That's really the problem.

Land based air is perfectly fine for home or pre-existing foreign base defense but if you want to be able to project power into and across the worlds oceans you need carriers. Even the minimal assets the UK had available for the Falklands were sufficient and the liberation of the islands would have been impossible without them.

Who you're fighting and where determines how much, if any, fleet air you need.

Exactly.

Unlike an Argentine adversary, can a squadron of F-35Bs project power over a near-peer adversary?

=====

[Suhiir]

I don't agree with everything said in this article.

(In particular it does not address the potential conflicts of mainly RAF 'owned' aircraft operating from RN carriers).

F-35B the right choice and the only choice for the Royal Navy

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/f-35b-the-right-choice-and-the-only-choice-for-the-royal-navy/

Do we know why the USN contines to favor the Super Hornet over the F-35C?

=====
Simple.
The F-35C, like all F-35's is primarily a ground/naval attack aircraft. A replacement for the various "A" series aircraft in spite of being designated "F" itself.
The F/A-18 is a better air superiority aircraft, and the F-22 can't fly off carriers, thus it will provide fleet air defense and escort.

The USMC feels pure fighter aircraft aren't really needed by them so they're sticking to the F-35B and a few C's. As I understand it they plan to retain the E/A-18G Growlers as well as replacements for the E/A-6's.

I suspect in the long run the F-35 series aircraft will turn out to be better fighters then it's various critics think, much like the Harrier was seen as useless as a fighter until the Falklands.

[IronDuke99]

Well if you are talking about RN Aircraft Carriers facing off against a near peer I don't see it as all that likely, without allies.

The only, non allied, near peers to UK in terms of technology/military I can think of are Russia and China. Things would have to be a bit on the bleak side for UK to be facing either of those nations on her lonesome...

Anyone other than those two, and British Allies like the USA, Australia, France, etc, F-35B, from about 2021-22 onwards, as a carrier CAP fighter probably could deal with.

The likes of India, probably? But India is actually drawing closer to the West/UK with both the RAF and the Royal Marines doing joint exercises with Indian forces recently. Hardly surprising with China expanding her navy and becoming more and more pushy at sea.

So, while F-35B is not a ideal carrier fighter I think it will, in due course, probably be able to defend a RN Task force against any threat it is likely to face.

Remember in a serious war situation a RN Carrier Task force would most likely include two Type 45 Air Defence Destroyers, three-four Type 23 ASW Frigates and a Astute class nuclear hunter killer submarine with cruise missiles. Not too many nations would really wish to tangle with that in a air-sea fight.

[Suhiir]

In a major war I suspect you'll see a lot of what we did in WW II. Joint US/UK/Australian/French/Etc. fleets.

[jp10]

Like the joint fleets of France and Spain at Trafalgar? Or the Australian-British-Dutch-American joint fleet at the Battle of the Java Sea? Or the Federation-Klingon joint fleet against the....OK, forget that last one...

[IronDuke99]

Like the joint fleets of France and Spain at Trafalgar? Or the Australian-British-Dutch-American joint fleet at the Battle of the Java Sea? Or the Federation-Klingon joint fleet against the....OK, forget that last one...

Lol.

I suspect, these days it would be more likely to be allied task forces working together, a bit like the British Pacific Fleet (Task Force 57) off Japan in 1945 working alongside the USN.

Also in response to someone asking about a single squadron of F-35B, the new Royal Navy carriers will have 24 F-35B (ie two squadron's) routinely embarked, and around 36 (ie, 3 squadrons) in a actual conflict situation. The ships are said to have a capacity of over 40 aircraft including helicopters, although I would be surprised, given their size if it was not closer to 50 if push came to shove.

UK took 20 Sea Harriers to the Falkland's, later reinforced by six more Sea Harriers and six RAF GR3 Harriers.

[shahadi]

Like the joint fleets of France and Spain at Trafalgar? Or the Australian-British-Dutch-American joint fleet at the Battle of the Java Sea? Or the Federation-Klingon joint fleet against the....OK, forget that last one...

Lol.

I suspect, these days it would be more likely to be allied task forces working together, a bit like the British Pacific Fleet (Task Force 57) off Japan in 1945 working alongside the USN.

Also in response to someone asking about a single squadron of F-35B, the new Royal Navy carriers will have 24 F-35B (ie two squadron's) routinely embarked, and around 36 (ie, 3 squadrons) in a actual conflict situation. The ships are said to have a capacity of over 40 aircraft including helicopters, although I would be surprised, given their size if it was not closer to 50 if push came to shove.

UK took 20 Sea Harriers to the Falkland's, later reinforced by six more Sea Harriers and six RAF GR3 Harriers.

I seem to recall the Sea Harriers and the GR3's had nine kills. Is that right?

=====

[shahadi]

Like the joint fleets of France and Spain at Trafalgar? Or the Australian-British-Dutch-American joint fleet at the Battle of the Java Sea? Or the Federation-Klingon joint fleet against the....OK, forget that last one...

No. Just like a Federation/Vulgan joint fleet against the Kligons.

=====

[shahadi]

And yet, if you read the very long report in my last post, it clearly states that, as of now F-35's are, even when working, and they are not up to their availability expectations, they are not able to perform any mission as well as current aircraft.

I know the USMC, no doubt for their own reasons, are rushing these things into some sort of service, but it really does not look like this aircraft is going to be much use to anyone much more 2021 at the very best. They are strongly suggesting even the initial testing will not be done until 2019 As it stands at the moment the guns don't work due to sighting issues, the software is as yet nowhere close to what was promised and their are assorted other problems too (read the report if anyone is interested).

Myself I really hope they get it working, since the Royal Navy Carrier programme depends on the damn thing. But they look to be some way off having a useful aircraft, let alone a world beating one...

Even given the current shortcomings of the F-35 as a family, it is far above the Chinese and the Russian 5th Gen fighters as those jets are nowhere close to production. In the hands of an operational squadron the development should grow exponitionally. Right?

What is interesting is the MAW did not describe the F-35 as an air superiority fighter, which I suspect still is the domain of the Raptor.

The Brits may have bigger issues with the F-35 as the US president elect has called into question the cost and role of the plane. It may get killed. And, that maybe why the Marines have "rushed" this squadron as a device to show the F-35 is already a fabric of the it's air element.

=====


Yes I did wonder if that had something to do with the very early USMC deployment. In British service F-35B will have to do CAP for fleet defence. In the same way Sea Harrier did until it was scrapped.


If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.

=====

[scorpio_rocks]

I seem to recall the Sea Harriers and the GR3's had nine kills. Is that right?


I believe it was 20+ with no loss! (a couple were lost to ground fire)

[shahadi]

I seem to recall the Sea Harriers and the GR3's had nine kills. Is that right?


I believe it was 20+ with no loss! (a couple were lost to ground fire)

Wow. That's nice shooting. Almost like flushing quail out of the Texas bush, once the birds are airborne, bam.

=====

[Suhiir]

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.
=====
Why?
It's hardly WW III and the aircraft is still undergoing operational testing and upgrades. Also chances are the maintenance is still primarily supervised by contractors and spare parts are virtually nonexistent.

There's a difference between being confident a weapons system will fulfill the role it's intended for and being fully operational.

[shahadi]

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.
=====
Why?
It's hardly WW III and the aircraft is still undergoing operational testing and upgrades. Also chances are the maintenance is still primarily supervised by contractors and spare parts are virtually nonexistent.

There's a difference between being confident a weapons system will fulfill the role it's intended for and being fully operational.

'Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, told USNI News last month that “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations.'” You may read the article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role.

=====

[IronDuke99]

If the Marines were truly confident in the plane as the literature suggest, they should based that squafron of F-35Bs in Incirlik.
=====
Why?
It's hardly WW III and the aircraft is still undergoing operational testing and upgrades. Also chances are the maintenance is still primarily supervised by contractors and spare parts are virtually nonexistent.

There's a difference between being confident a weapons system will fulfill the role it's intended for and being fully operational.

'Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, told USNI News last month that “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations.'” You may read the article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role.

=====


Never under estimate the importance of 'politics' in military decisions. If the USMC are going to keep dedicated USMC air after Harrier they need F-35B. 'Seamlessly' running Harrier into F-35B makes the chances of having that kind of, important, air support cut far less likely.

[shahadi]

Why?
It's hardly WW III and the aircraft is still undergoing operational testing and upgrades. Also chances are the maintenance is still primarily supervised by contractors and spare parts are virtually nonexistent.

There's a difference between being confident a weapons system will fulfill the role it's intended for and being fully operational.

'Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, the Marine Corps’ deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations, told USNI News last month that “we intend to fully incorporate the F-35 into the [U.S. Pacific Command] area of operations.'” You may read the article here: https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/first-marine-corps-f-35b-squadron-leaves-japan.

Sounds like Lt. Gen. Ronald Bailey, USMC is confident in the plane to perform it's operatinal role.

=====


Never under estimate the importance of 'politics' in military decisions. If the USMC are going to keep dedicated USMC air after Harrier they need F-35B. 'Seamlessly' running Harrier into F-35B makes the chances of having that kind of, important, air support cut far less likely.

Agreed.

=====

[Suhiir]

Never under estimate the importance of 'politics' in military decisions. If the USMC are going to keep dedicated USMC air after Harrier they need F-35B. 'Seamlessly' running Harrier into F-35B makes the chances of having that kind of, important, air support cut far less likely.

Yep, at those levels decisions are every bit as much influenced by political factors as military ones ... hopefully the military factors take priority but as we've seen far to often this isn't always the case.

[jp10]

You might want to wait to buy a ticket for an F-35 ride yet.

276 faults found in F-35 jets.

"THE MAIN ISSUES

Fixing the 25mm cannon which vibrates excessively
Way it is targeted by the aircraft’s ‘virtual reality’ helmet needs work
Overheating, premature wear of components in the vertical tails and vulnerability to fire also an issue
Aircraft’s ‘objectionable or unacceptable flying qualities’ while crossing the sound barrier – for which there are currently no plans for a fix."

http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-01-18/f-35-in-crisis-as-pentagon-tests-find-276-different-faults-in-400bn-jets-combat-system/

[shahadi]

Now the fate of the F-35B may well be enhanced now that SecDef James Mattis, a decorated USMC general, considered as a scholar assumes authority of the department of defense.

Let's hope he influences Lockheed Martin in the best interests of the MAW's and the land element marines.


=====

[jp10]

Ever see a General without decorations? It's like a Christmas tree without ornaments. Without them, you are just a tree.

[Suhiir]

Now the fate of the F-35B may well be enhanced now that SecDef James Mattis, a decorated USMC general, considered as a scholar assumes authority of the department of defense.

Let's hope he influences Lockheed Martin in the best interests of the MAW's and the land element marines.
=====
Him and Trump both.

I don't see any indication either plans to shut down the F-35, in spite of those that claim it should be. But rather they plan to get the bloated and inefficient military-industrial system under control, long overdue.

[shahadi]

Now the fate of the F-35B may well be enhanced now that SecDef James Mattis, a decorated USMC general, considered as a scholar assumes authority of the department of defense.

Let's hope he influences Lockheed Martin in the best interests of the MAW's and the land element marines.
=====
Him and Trump both.

I don't see any indication either plans to shut down the F-35, in spite of those that claim it should be. But rather they plan to get the bloated and inefficient military-industrial system under control, long overdue.

I don't mean to quibble, but I did say "enhanced."

=====

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

My purpose with the next is very basic, simply it is to provide general information on who is currently operating carriers in the world now and what their capabilities are in regards to combat aircraft and air assault troop capabilities or a combination of both as many listed have. Why? To allow for these options to be available in the game and for scenarios that amphibious assaults are part of the mix. It hasn't been just about "landing craft" for a very longtime now. A minor point that might add a new dimension to the game or your scenarios. The upside you wouldn't even need to show/or build the ships after all these are over the horizon operations in the first place.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/g2412/a-global-roundup-of-aircraft-carriers/
http://www.military-today.com/navy.htm

I leave you the main site that covers 10 main topics as noted in the left side column. They do cover a lot of ground and is well researched. I'd hate to lose this site like a couple of others so if you think about click on it "traffic counts" are real important to defense sites due to the "niche" market they serve.
http://www.military-today.com/index.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

Thanks... got the New Japanese 8x8 APC from the link

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

That wasn't my intention!?! ;) Would you believe I've already been tracking the replacement for the TYPE 97 APC? :shock: I'll give you what I have in the "right thread" for that information which is fairly new.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I forgot to add to the above about the carriers, they would not serve any other purpose in the game much as an airfield doesn't. I could see the argument maybe why some would say there should be a plenty for a carrier. If that should be the case, and just for "food for thought" such penalty should be at either 250 or no more then 500 points plus the cost of the assets involved in jets and air assault troops. But again no penalty for airfields should apply to carriers. A nice picture of the vessel, aircraft/helos fitted for close air support, available from turn one dropping all ordnance, with a ten turn delay between sorties of the pairs as used allowing for recovery, rearming and return, yes as fully loaded aircraft. It can be done after speaking to a retired USN "AO". This assumes a near over the horizon capability of the carrier 100NM off the coast with the jet returning at a speed of 700 knots, flight time would be less than 8.57 minutes. I'm assuming sortie times and delay only because I'm going by memory, that each player turn is 6 mins long? I also only see six to ten pairs being available (Less where limited to available aircraft.) for use based on "other missions in the area" off map. Helos might incur around 12 turn cycle, however their support ships would be at least or could be well inside 50NM from shore.

Air Assault - I think were Jets and possibly AH Helos would fall under the artillery phase to allow for the turn delays. Regular Assault helos might not allow for the return to ship to bring in additional troops and might just have to sit in low altitude hover out to sea on the map unless there is a way to fly them off the map and be able to bring them back on the board when inland progress is being made and using them to lift the troops further inland. Don't know, that's beyond my expertise out here.

Other issues - How hard would it be or can it be done to rearm the recovered jets and attack helos. Or do you just use KISS increase the pairings slightly and simply once they appear on the map and drop all their ordnance, we assume if not shot down they return to the carrier to support "other ops" and NOT return to your AOR.

If your going to suggest something you gotta present the Pro and Cons as far as you can see them. Just me I guess. But I think the concept could open another dimension to the game beyond just landings to maybe include coastal countries as well either locally i.e. Brazil, France (As demonstrated in the Middle East.) or more of world wide projection which in reality might only mean the U.S. and maybe the UK. I can see this for China in the not to distant future as well and India somewhat more operating in the Asian AOR.

Just my thoughts all from a harmless conversation with a retired "AO". That last (AO) is the homework part! ;)


Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I don't mean to quibble, but I did say "enhanced."
=====
No clue what they'd "enhance" at this point, they're still working on basic operability (software, certification to carry various weapons, getting the gun pod working properly, ...).

[IronDuke99]

My purpose with the next is very basic, simply it is to provide general information on who is currently operating carriers in the world now and what their capabilities are in regards to combat aircraft and air assault troop capabilities or a combination of both as many listed have. Why? To allow for these options to be available in the game and for scenarios that amphibious assaults are part of the mix. It hasn't been just about "landing craft" for a very longtime now. A minor point that might add a new dimension to the game or your scenarios. The upside you wouldn't even need to show/or build the ships after all these are over the horizon operations in the first place.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/g2412/a-global-roundup-of-aircraft-carriers/
http://www.military-today.com/navy.htm

I leave you the main site that covers 10 main topics as noted in the left side column. They do cover a lot of ground and is well researched. I'd hate to lose this site like a couple of others so if you think about click on it "traffic counts" are real important to defense sites due to the "niche" market they serve.
http://www.military-today.com/index.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:


The part in the article about the RN Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers (named after Queen Elizabeth I 1533-1601, btw) is way out of date. The British Government officially announced, well over a year ago, that they will normally deploy 24 F-35B and I would be amazed if they only carried 4 helicopters, given they need at least two for AEW (see Crowsnest project) plus others for ASW, etc. Also it seems they are about 70,000 tons full load.

36 F-35B in a major conflict seems reasonably likely, and, as I've said before, there is no way these huge ships -the largest ever built for the Royal Navy- cannot carry 50 aircraft.

UK is buying 148 F-35B, as of now.

[shahadi]

I don't mean to quibble, but I did say "enhanced."
=====
No clue what they'd "enhance" at this point, they're still working on basic operability (software, certification to carry various weapons, getting the gun pod working properly, ...).

In other words getting the damn thing to be able to fight and survive.

The AI wingman software for one...the employment of deep strike capabilities for another.

As I alluded earlier, forward deployment of the 3rd MAW is political for if the 3rd is ready for forward deployment in support of a MEU (ground support, strike missions, etc), then deployment to Turkey where the pilots would get learning of the F-35B her capabilities, etc and how to best use the aircraft in combat, for surely there are countless combat sorties to be had there rather than Japan.

But, if all the problems you cited exist and I've read some of the same, then forward deployment is not justified. The birds are not ready.

Properly speaking "enhancement" may also mean making the damn thing work or making it work better, not necessarily adding something new, often referred to as scalability.

=====

[IronDuke99]

This is an old article, (mid 2014) but it does show a QE class carrier (right) next to a Invincible class light carrier they are replacing.

The three invincible class ships, after midlife refits, could carry a maximum of 20 aircraft of all types at a squeeze.

The deck edge lifts are both down on QE.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to enter Portsmouth Naval base for the first time at some point between between March and May this year.

http://navalanalyses.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/infographics-2-queen-elizabeth-class.html

Click photo to enlarge.

[shahadi]

This is an old article, (mid 2014) but it does show a QE class carrier (right) next to a Invincible class light carrier they are replacing.

The three invincible class ships, after midlife refits, could carry a maximum of 20 aircraft of all types at a squeeze.

The deck edge lifts are both down on QE.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to enter Portsmouth Naval base for the first time at some point between between March and May this year.

http://navalanalyses.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/infographics-2-queen-elizabeth-class.html

Click photo to enlarge.

She has two carriers under production in the QE class, is that right? And, as I recall, RN will deploy only helos until about 2021 or so. Can you give more detail.

=====

[Suhiir]

In other words getting the damn thing to be able to fight and survive.
=====
In the case of the B it's already a superior aircraft (in almost all respects) to what it's replacing, the Harrier. I'll freely admit I'm not as familiar with the A and C variants.

Look at the F-35 in comparison to what it replaces as a ground attack aircraft not in comparison to air superiority aircraft.

The F-16 didn't come out of the box as it exists is today, no new aircraft does. Has the F-35 had more then it's share of problems, probably. Are those problems insurmountable, no.

[IronDuke99]

This is an old article, (mid 2014) but it does show a QE class carrier (right) next to a Invincible class light carrier they are replacing.

The three invincible class ships, after midlife refits, could carry a maximum of 20 aircraft of all types at a squeeze.

The deck edge lifts are both down on QE.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to enter Portsmouth Naval base for the first time at some point between between March and May this year.

http://navalanalyses.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/infographics-2-queen-elizabeth-class.html

Click photo to enlarge.

She has two carriers under production in the QE class, is that right? And, as I recall, RN will deploy only helos until about 2021 or so. Can you give more detail.

=====

Two Ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (both are traditional Battleship rather than Aircraft Carrier names in the RN. There remains a slight possibility than PoW might get renamed Ark Royal).

HMS Queen Elizabeth is only now finishing building and is a brand new ship of a brand new class and has yet to do sea trails, etc.

She is pretty unlikely to be operational in any sense until 2020 and that is when she will get her first fixed wing aircraft. Because the F-35B aircraft will also be new that is going to require a fairly long work up too.

At the moment UK owns four F-35 and is due to buy 148, most will be RAF manned, although RAF squadrons will deploy to the carriers. Given the RAF intends to operate its F-35B aircraft in a conventional manner (ie, normal runway landings) on land, it remains to be seen how this will work in practice. At sea the F-35 can land vertically, but, if full of fuel and/or weapons will use a "rolling landing". My guess is that that is a skill that will require practice...

(The RN has air and flight deck crew on attachment with the USN and USMC, and has had for some years now, to help work up big carrier/F-35B skills and also occasionally does stuff with the French Carrier).

She should be more or less fully operational, with a full air group, in 2021-22, when, rumour suggests, she will do a Indian Ocean-Pacific deployment. A full, peacetime, air group should be 24 F-35B and about 8-12 Helicopters including AEW with Crowsnest.

HMS Prince of Wales should Commission 2019-20, and getting her operational should be much quicker. Having two Carriers will mean the RN will be able to maintain one constantly in commission and, mostly, have two available for major emergencies.

The current plan is that PoW will also be able to double as a Landing Platform Helicopter for the Royal Marines, although a lot of people, including myself, think that is a crazy, and risky, idea for a 70,000 ton warship. She would be a huge, very high value, target sitting just off an enemy coast. Hopefully common sense will prevail and HMS Ocean will be run on, until a replacement can be built.

The RN's last big Carrier was HMS Ark Royal 1955-79, that ended up at 54,000 tons, 804ft with a oa beam of 171ft and could carry up to 38 aircraft.

The QE's are 70,600 tons, 920ft with a oa beam of 239ft and can carry "over 40 aircraft" including aircraft as large as Chinook and Osprey.

Frankly I will be amazed if these ships cannot carry 50 aircraft if need be, given that only USN Carriers are larger (The latest USN Gerald R. Ford class carriers are over 100,000 tons, 1,106ft with a oa beam of 256ft and carry 75+ aircraft).

HMS Hermes (the RN Flagship in the Falkland's conflict of 1982) was about 30,000 tons, 744ft with a oa beam of 144ft and at one stage in the Falklands war had an air group of 36 aircraft of all types.

For more info see
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/carrier-count-down-part-1-debunking-the-hype-mis-information-nonsense/

[IronDuke99]

PS

In an earlier post on the Harriers in the Falkland's conflict I made an error.

The Task force sailed with 20 Sea Harriers (12 on HMS Hermes and 8 on HMS Invincible).

These aircraft were later reinforced by a further 6 Fleet Air Arm Sea Harriers and 10 (not six as I mistakenly said) RAF GR3 Harriers.

[IronDuke99]

I was reading a article today that says HMS Queen Elizabeth will get some Helicopters aboard later this year and the first F-35B late in 2018, although I still don't think she will be fully operational, barring a national emergency, much before 2020...

[shahadi]

I was reading a article today that says HMS Queen Elizabeth will get some Helicopters aboard later this year and the first F-35B late in 2018, although I still don't think she will be fully operational, barring a national emergency, much before 2020...

Yes, I too recall a report the HMS QE class carriers won't be F-35B suitable until sometime beyond 2020. Something to do with a retrofit of her decks. Until then, she will carry helos.

=====

[IronDuke99]

I was reading a article today that says HMS Queen Elizabeth will get some Helicopters aboard later this year and the first F-35B late in 2018, although I still don't think she will be fully operational, barring a national emergency, much before 2020...

Yes, I too recall a report the HMS QE class carriers won't be F-35B suitable until sometime beyond 2020. Something to do with a retrofit of her decks. Until then, she will carry helos.

=====

Nope, I believe her decks are already coated with the stuff to take the heat from the F-35B engines, etc. It is just that the aircraft are not really ready for ops and UK does not have many yet (a fairly sensible choice, given that current F-35's are nothing like fully up to specs, etc, and buying more now just means they will need expensive upgrading down the track).

As I said, QE will not be operational, with helos, or anything else, for some time. I have heard some talk of her being in 'limited operations' as of C.2019, but frankly, short of a big national emergency, she is not going to be operational until about 2021.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm posting this NOT to start any debate here because let's face it, the governments and associated military authorities have already made their decisions concerning what plane "we're" using.

So with that in mind, I'm tracking this program and I was surprised about the performance capability ALREADY TESTED for the U.S. entry being considered. You might find the next interesting for that reason alone.
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/01/indian-navy-kicks-off-global-search-for.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Latest war games using the F-35 (Red Flag).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgLjNsB_hyM

[shahadi]

"...I'm tracking this program and I was surprised about the performance capability ALREADY TESTED for the U.S. entry being considered. You might find the next interesting for that reason alone."
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2017/01/indian-navy-kicks-off-global-search-for.html

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Yeah, I saw that article as well (read it too, lol). The comments were most interesting.

I have to remind myself, planes in the game are mostly eye candy. What they deliver per their costs is pretty steep. I'd rather buy a UAV for recon/surveillance, and spend my money on a detachment of attack helos.

=====

[DRG]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/us-f-35-stealth-fighter-jets-deploy-nato-uk-russia-threat-a7687031.html

[WilliamB]

This comes from the September issue of Combat Aircraft magazine. The Austrian Ministry of Defense has announced plans to withdraw the Austrian Air Forces 15 Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoons from service from 2020. The ministry says the reason is that the jets "provide limited equipment and significant cost uncertainty". Hope this is the correct place to post this.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's as good as any place for that post. ;) I have the following from early June with their being more to it just Tranche 1 EUROFIGHTER, it will also require the SAAB 105OE's and possibly their Pilatus PC-7 trainers replaced as well. As you can see the "numbers" are a big concern as all these decisions are.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/austria-to-retire-eurofighter-typhoons-from-2020-439130/

This what I see happening as of right now...

1)Tranche 1 EUROFIGHTER: A possible deal gets worked in some combination or alone with EUROFIGHTER to reduce the cost of maintenance and or upgrade the fighter to a higher standard.

2) SAAB 105OE: Definitely will replace these they've been reliable jets for them that they've had for a longtime now.

3) Pilatus PC-7: I see them keeping these trainers with an upgrade package which are available.

Conclusions:

1a) I'm not sure that EUROFIGHTER will be able to currently pull off the deal as noted in A) above.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/eurofighter_typhoon.htm

So...
2a.) I see a fighter competition coming down to the following...
RAFAEL the one they wish they could have but might not be able to afford basically.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/dassault_rafale.htm

F-16V or next mark down, however, if they want a shot at competing with the Russian stealth fighters, they need to get the "V" series.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f-16v-viper-fighting-falcon-multi-role-fighter/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/f16v_viper.htm

GRIPEN C/D 4th Gen+ or the new GRIPEN NG 4th Gen ++, either of these would be a cheaper option in leasing which several countries are doing and just in outright purchasing them as some have done as well. There are currently maybe only 2 or 3 jets that can be considered 4th Gen something. I believe the GRIPEN will be the winner as these fighters meet all their current considerations.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/jas_39_gripen.htm

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[redcoat2]

The U.S. has delivered two (of six) A29 Super Tucano light-attack aircraft to Lebanon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-lebanon-receives-2-military-aircraft-from-the-us-2017-10?

The pilots have already been training in the U.S.

http://www.janes.com/article/69076/lebanese-super-tucano-pilots-begin-training (http://www.janes.com/article/69076/lebanese-super-tucano-pilots-begin-training)

[Pibwl]

If I may:

Afghanistan OOB:

547 EMB-314 - an official designation is A-29 as well (I suggest: A29 SuperTucano). They first arrived in 1/16 (now: 4/15) https://www.militarytimes.com/2015/12/21/afghan-air-force-awaits-arrival-of-first-fixed-wing-attack-aircraft/ - needs a formation 089 change as well

Icon in fact should be grey (2894 could do, or 2844 Mustang)

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The above would be correct and from my files...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/05/afghan-military-to-receive-a29-close-air-support-planes-in.html
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsafghan-air-force-receives-four-a-29-super-tucano-light-attack-aircraft-from-us-4786738
http://www.janes.com/article/68843/afghanistan-receives-further-super-tucanos-ahead-of-2017-fighting-season
http://armydotmil.com/afghan-air-force-receives-first-four-a-29-attack-aircraft/

Both names are correct. A-29 Super T... would make it easier to find the plane should there be any offensive or defensive capability changes down the road across all country users.

OV-10 BRONCO G+ not dead!?! And it ain't your
Dad's" OV-10 BRONCO from Vietnam ethier...
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/decades-old-planes-used-against-isis/index.html
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Navy/North-American-Rockwell-OV-10G-Bronco/2651703
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-06/bronco-12-cleared-hot

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

OV-10 BRONCO G+ not dead!?! And it ain't your
Dad's" OV-10 BRONCO from Vietnam ethier...
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/decades-old-planes-used-against-isis/index.html
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Navy/North-American-Rockwell-OV-10G-Bronco/2651703
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2016-06/bronco-12-cleared-hot

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

...which is why it was added to USMC unit 621 last year as the OV-10D Bronco but has now been extended to 2025 as the OV-10G+ Bronco

[Suhiir]

OV-10 BRONCO G+ not dead!?! And it ain't your
Dad's" OV-10 BRONCO from Vietnam ethier...
...which is why it was added to USMC unit 621 last year as the OV-10D Bronco but has now been extended to 2025 as the OV-10G+ Bronco
I do occasionally stumble across something before you do swabbie.

[Pibwl]

News and updates as for Slovakia (OOB51)

Withdrawal dates according to https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vzdu%C5%A1n%C3%A9_sily_Slovenskej_republiky

155 Aero L-29 - withdrawn by 2003

160, 161 MiG-21 - withdrawn in 2003

180-182, 331, 335 JAS39 Gripen - not used as for now, and probably won't be :(

170 Su-22M4 - withdrawn in 2002

There is much more armament variants in Czechoslovak OOB, including ones with missiles - probably they remained in use.

173, 337, 904 -Su-25K - withdrawn in 2002

Transport aircraft:

234 Antonov-12BP - withdrawn in 1999

235 Antonov-24 - withdrawn in 2006

236 Antonov-26 - withdrawn in 2016 (might be retained until arrival of C-27)

From 10/17 there is C-27J Spartan used (one, as for now)

All the time there were lighter Let-410 Turbolet used (12 paratroops)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_L-410_Turbolet

If you'd like to add it, icon 2780 of Twin Otter should do.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I've been watching the following develop for awhile now concerning the F-35, so it's time to "throw it" out here...
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/186991/.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/187563/cost-of-unfixable-f_35s-may-reach-%2440-billion.html

From ref. 3 I'll simply quote from from the end of each of the fighters general information block...

F-35A - This is still looking like it'll be 2019 however... "The F-35A was the first variant to fly, in 2009. Unfortunately, it looks like it won’t reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) until 2017 or 2018."

Well you can definitely cross off 2017.

F-35B - "Planes with full Block 3 initial combat capability are unlikely to be fielded before 2018."

Well we know the answer to that now don't we!?!

F-35C - "Initial Operational Capability was scheduled for 2014, but looks set to slip to 2019."

Finally it has. There's so much commonality in the systems between the types, it'll be hard to imagine any of these jets being ready much before Jun 2019 (That for the sake of argument.).

Too much is left to be done, weapons certs, op evals, software issues, logistics (Has reared it's head many times over the years to include a key software issue.) etc. etc. And we still haven't had the competition between the A-10/F-15SE/F/A-18E/F and F-16V (Which should've been retired by now or close to.) along with the latest previous Block were developed out of necessity due to the various delays of the F-35 Program.

That's the one item I'm trying to really keep an eye on. Can you imagine the delay if the F-35 during the CAP eval against those planes turns in a sub par performance? Or even , just that, performs equally as well as them?

It'll cause a political firestorm.

Save yourself the aggravation make them all simply JUN 2019.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-lightning-the-joint-strike-fighter-program-edit-037947/

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ARTICLE WHILE IT'S FULLY UNLOCKED FOR THE TIME BEING!!!!

Also of interest and somewhat in support of the above...
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-puts-comms-gateway-for-f-22-and-f-35-back-on-sh-443005/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/top-usn-admiral-warns-congress-on-aviation-fleet-443070/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lawmakers-add-f-35s-keep-jstars-in-proposed-ndaa-443026/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[MarkSheppard]

Israelis just declared IOC for the first squadron of their F-35, which is currently at 9 aircraft operational.

Meanwhile, Canada cancelled it's F-18E/F Super Hornet Purchase which in turn was intended to replace a cancelled F-35 buy. Prospective replacement is Australia's old F-18s which would be remanufactured in Canada to extend their service lives.

[DRG]

OOB now corrected to 12/117

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

There might be a little something here for everyone from the F-35, CAS since WWII and an article I found of particular interesting concerning Hypersonic Vehicles. This is a NATO publication.
https://www.japcc.org/wp-content/uploads/JAPCC_J24_screen.pdf

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

..and now Denmark has F-35's in 2022..

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

While the USAF is still working on the common logistics software issue that'll affect all three versions of the F-35, the USN has taken another step closer to bringing the F-35C to Initial Operational Capability (IOC) per the below ref.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=6694

Weapons testing is also still ongoing along with several others and the CAS test against the A-10 and F-15SE well, let's just say has been delayed until Spring of 2018. Of course along with everyone else, I'm awaiting the results of that.

Now we wait until they reach Full Operational Capability (FOC) there's a reason I started using these terms because generally speaking those are the terms and associated definitions of them that many of the world's militaries use. And really my "old" term "Fielded" actually fitted better than I thought after looking into what the above terms actually meant in military terms. For those in a "hurry" I offer the following ref. again from NAVAIR it fits this perfectly as FOC is just the final step to Fielded in a weapons system etc. This of course doesn't apply to Don or the others who track these things for some cases over many years.

IOC does allow us some latitude (Unless we have other information such as the Russians hoping to have the T-14 ARMATA
Operational/Fielded from the many statements they've made to date but, even that could be wishful thinking.) to establish a start date for the game recognizing the dates can and usually will shift (ARJUN Mk I/Mk II which will need to be changed again by the way.). But there's always the chance it could happen sooner or as put in if the program is moving along smoothly. My example covers the USN's JSOW C-1 and fully discusses the process and as you'll see, reaching the Fielded stage can still take, in this case, a year and a half after FOC (Para.2 of the ref.).
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=6658

Also note the RAAF will be getting this weapon as well.

A final observation for my MARINE friend (It's a rare early non sarcastic compliment sort of - so here's your early Merry Christmas! :p (I did say sort of!)) and others that the F-35B was the one predicted too have the most issues but ended up being the first to IOC and I feel confident the first to FOC+.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

A final observation for my MARINE friend (It's a rare early non sarcastic compliment sort of - so here's your early Merry Christmas! :p (I did say sort of!)) and others that the F-35B was the one predicted too have the most issues but ended up being the first to IOC and I feel confident the first to FOC+.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:
I'd guess a lot of that has to do with the way Jarheads do business. They're more use to looking for their own solutions then waiting for someone else to come up with one.

And Happy Holidays to you and the Boss (and any rugrats) Sailor.

[redcoat2]

Indian Air Force retires MiG-27 ML Bahadur, 12/2017.

obat 18. Unit 284.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-force-bids-farewell-to-mig-27-ml-bahadur-1793734

https://www.oneindia.com/india/iaf-bids-adieu-to-mig-27-ml-bahadur-this-formidable-fighter-had-some-crash-issues-2611156.html

[MarkSheppard]

China is claiming the J-20 is now in operational service, FWIW.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2132777/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-jet-lines-combat-duty

China’s J-20 stealth fighter has entered combat service, the country’s armed forces confirmed on Friday, expanding the military’s air power options as it presses on with a massive modernisation programme.

People’s Liberation Army Air Force spokesman Shen Jinke said the deployment of the J-20 to combat units would “help the air force better shoulder the sacred mission of safeguarding national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity”.

[MarkSheppard]

Oh dear, and now looks like Su-57 (aka T-50) is doing an early combat test in Syria:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/22/new-russian-stealth-fighter-spotted-in-syria

Moscow appears to have deployed an advanced new stealth fighter to its airbase in Syria, reports in Russian news media and online videos of the aircraft indicated on Thursday, in what analysts say could be a risky attempt to gain publicity and operational experience for the jet in one of the world’s most tangled conflicts.

Their appearance comes at a fraught moment in the seven-year war, as the US and Russia occasionally scramble jets to intercept each other over Syria and pro-regime warplanes pound the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta despite protests from the UN. More than 330 people have been killed there since the bombing began on Sunday, according to reports.

The deployment of two Su-57 fighter aircraft, which were filmed landing at Russia’s Khmeimim airbase along the Mediterranean coast, would represent the latest high-tech military system Russia has exhibited in Syria, a conflict that has already been used to demonstrate the prowess of Russian cruise missiles and combat helicopters.

Both the Kremlin and the Russian ministry of defence declined to comment on whether the fifth-generation Russian fighter jets, which are still in combat testing phases, had been deployed. Russian news agencies, including the respected RBC business daily, published reports on Thursday saying sources in the ministry of defence had confirmed the presence of the advanced fighter jets in Syria.

The military had previously announced it would begin testing the fighters in combat. They have been touted as a future rival to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which the US uses in patrols over Syria.

Yuri Borisov, the deputy defence minister, said earlier in February: “We are buying Su-57 jets for test combat use. First stage state trials are over.”

US-led forces wounded and killed dozens of Russian mercenaries and pro-Assad militiamen earlier this month, in a battle near the city of Deir ez-Zor in which US drones and warplanes directly targeted Russians fighting on the government side for the first time in the war.

Russia has regularly used the conflict as a testing ground for its latest military technology and has even credited it for an uptick in arms sales. The Su-57, the first operational Russian jet to use stealth technology, has been plagued by cost and time overruns, and analysts said there could be a business rationale behind the deployment.

“There is some operational merit in doing this, but there’s also a publicity element,” said Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He noted that a successful demonstration of the plane in Syria could assuage concerns of potential buyers such as the Indian government.

It is still unclear whether the aircraft could play any role in day-to-day operations. “We haven’t seen it fire anything. We haven’t seen it drop anything,” Barrie said.

Ruslan Pukhov, a defence analyst and the director of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said it could be risky to deploy the new jets to Syria.

“If I were the minister of defence, I probably wouldn’t do it,” he said. “If you lose one of these planes, it could make for big problems. And what happens if the technology falls into the wrong hands?”

[Suhiir]

I suspect they primarily want a "field test" vs NATO (and particularly US) aircraft and radars.

[Imp]

Just that see where they are at, Russia claim to have used 127 new weapon systems in the recent conflicts. Many due for slight tweaks & refinements based on battlefield use that testing did not highlight. No more is it just use the cheap stuff they try it all & look at refining the tactics to use them.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I just knew it would happen and so before!!! I can finally get that improved A-10 I had to "keep in the can" and get it released. A-10's until 2025!! :D
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/draft-documents-reveal-usaf-plans-for-more-a-10-upgr-445784/

It'll get done. For the USAF to have a draft to finish the last 100 A-10 aircraft that are due for re-winging this late guarantee's the survival of the A-10 beyond the mid-2020's.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[DRG]

They are already in the game until 2025 so nothing changes

[shahadi]

Oh dear, and now looks like Su-57 (aka T-50) is doing an early combat test in Syria:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/22/new-russian-stealth-fighter-spotted-in-syria

Moscow appears to have deployed an advanced new stealth fighter to its airbase in Syria, reports in Russian news media and online videos of the aircraft indicated on Thursday, in what analysts say could be a risky attempt to gain publicity and operational experience for the jet in one of the world’s most tangled conflicts.

Their appearance comes at a fraught moment in the seven-year war, as the US and Russia occasionally scramble jets to intercept each other over Syria and pro-regime warplanes pound the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta despite protests from the UN. More than 330 people have been killed there since the bombing began on Sunday, according to reports.

The deployment of two Su-57 fighter aircraft, which were filmed landing at Russia’s Khmeimim airbase along the Mediterranean coast, would represent the latest high-tech military system Russia has exhibited in Syria, a conflict that has already been used to demonstrate the prowess of Russian cruise missiles and combat helicopters.

Both the Kremlin and the Russian ministry of defence declined to comment on whether the fifth-generation Russian fighter jets, which are still in combat testing phases, had been deployed. Russian news agencies, including the respected RBC business daily, published reports on Thursday saying sources in the ministry of defence had confirmed the presence of the advanced fighter jets in Syria.

The military had previously announced it would begin testing the fighters in combat. They have been touted as a future rival to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, which the US uses in patrols over Syria.

Yuri Borisov, the deputy defence minister, said earlier in February: “We are buying Su-57 jets for test combat use. First stage state trials are over.”

US-led forces wounded and killed dozens of Russian mercenaries and pro-Assad militiamen earlier this month, in a battle near the city of Deir ez-Zor in which US drones and warplanes directly targeted Russians fighting on the government side for the first time in the war.

Russia has regularly used the conflict as a testing ground for its latest military technology and has even credited it for an uptick in arms sales. The Su-57, the first operational Russian jet to use stealth technology, has been plagued by cost and time overruns, and analysts said there could be a business rationale behind the deployment.

“There is some operational merit in doing this, but there’s also a publicity element,” said Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. He noted that a successful demonstration of the plane in Syria could assuage concerns of potential buyers such as the Indian government.

It is still unclear whether the aircraft could play any role in day-to-day operations. “We haven’t seen it fire anything. We haven’t seen it drop anything,” Barrie said.

Ruslan Pukhov, a defence analyst and the director of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said it could be risky to deploy the new jets to Syria.

“If I were the minister of defence, I probably wouldn’t do it,” he said. “If you lose one of these planes, it could make for big problems. And what happens if the technology falls into the wrong hands?”

I suspect they primarily want a "field test" vs NATO (and particularly US) aircraft and radars.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15212&stc=1&d=1519666311

The English language, Times of Israel (timesofisrael.com (https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-deploys-advanced-stealth-jets-in-syria-with-warning-aimed-at-israel/)) is reporting the deployment of the stealth jets as a veiled warning to Israel, "The deployment came with a covert warning to Israel by a Russian official, who said that the presence of the Su-57s will doubtlessly send a political message, serving as a deterrent “for aircraft from neighboring states, which periodically fly into Syrian airspace uninvited.”

Russia Today (RT.com (https://www.rt.com/news/419816-su-57-syria-trial/amp/)) reports the deployment of the fighters to test radars and electronic warfare capabilities, "The trial will initially focus on electronic warfare and radar capabilities of the 5th-generation fighter jet, rather than its weapon systems," as other posters have noted.

Although the decision to trial the jets in Syria were reached after the MAKS 2017 airshow in July, the deployment, "...to Syria [comes] less than two weeks after US forces attacked (defended US allied forces) and devasted a group of pro-government forces, which included some Russian citizens.

Additionally, Russia has deployed four advanced Su-35s and an A-50U AWACS aircraft.

These reports and others could serve as excellent context for Syrian/Israeli/Russian/Iranian scenarios.

<br>

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

It's been reported those Russian planes especially the Su-35 which is Russia's most advanced fighter are in Syria for one main reason, the F-22. They are going and been trying to get the F-22 exposed as much as possible for ELINT electronics signals(Intelligence derived from electromagnetic radiations from foreign sources (other than radioactive sources)) and SIGINT signals intelligence (intelligence information gathered from communications intelligence or electronics intelligence or telemetry intelligence). This data to whatever extent they can collect it (If at all.) would be more than valuable in accessing the capabilities of their systems to include beyond aircraft, also ground tracking and FCS radars.

We are smart enough to know this and the F-22 fortunately doesn't need to be in the same airspace as the Russians, and they are hemmed in on the borders of Syria to some extent.

Saw a lot of this when we were in the MED during the summer of '87. They'd light up their radars and we'd do the same and I'm sure someone on both sides would be listening. While everyone played "chicken". :D

The Su-35S is and will be the backbone (Along with earlier mods.) of the Russian Air Force for many years to come. The Ministry of Defense has ordered more of those jets then it currently plans on for the PAK-FA/Su-57 which has lost some of it's "luster" and fallen out of the 5th GEN status due to cost savings to the program and other issues. India it's co-developer wasn't very happy about this citing I believe 17 or 20 changes that needed to be made to keep it in that status. Russia also self reported this themselves a couple of months back I believe. Anyway I posted that in here at the time I'm pretty sure. This fighter can at this moment be considered a 4th GEN +++ along with GRIPEN NG, and latest versions of the EUROFIGHTER and RAFALE. All those fighters are "Super Cruise" capable, more on that below. We know what's above them and everything else will trickle down from there starting with 4th GEN ++.

Game wise it probably will not be viable for the game. And there's plenty to support that.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-su-57-stealth-fighter-disappointment-2017-8
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-su-57-stealth-fighter-has-big-problem-wont-be-23643

Su-35S...
This is their top fighter and is out there in numbers presently. Besides all the electronics onboard, this plane also has "thrust vectoring" which is a HUGE advantage in a fight and leaving one. Still trying to fully clarify (Looks like it does.) if it also processes "Super Cruise" (This is one of many factors that a true 5th GEN fighter MUST possess.) which basically means "after burner" speeds for a sustained period of time w/o the "burner" part, in other a much lower IR signature. Many outside of Russia, feel this fighter is probably overall, better than the F-35. Which is why we've been spending 100's of million dollars to upgrade the F-22 over the last several years.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su-35/
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/su_35.htm

Well I'm going to relax the rest of this evening before as I intimated I start my "Balls-To-The-Walls" week.

Have a good week everyone!! :)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[RC4]

Portuguese Air Force retires Alpha Jet fleet in January 2018
http://www.passarodeferro.com/2017/11/alpha-jet-ultimos-cartuchos-m1935-722017.html
Thanks

[Suhiir]

Su-35S...
This is their top fighter and is out there in numbers presently. Besides all the electronics onboard, this plane also has "thrust vectoring" which is a HUGE advantage in a fight and leaving one. Still trying to fully clarify (Looks like it does.) if it also processes "Super Cruise" (This is one of many factors that a true 5th GEN fighter MUST possess.) which basically means "after burner" speeds for a sustained period of time w/o the "burner" part, in other a much lower IR signature. Many outside of Russia, feel this fighter is probably overall, better than the F-35. Which is why we've been spending 100's of million dollars to upgrade the F-22 over the last several years.

Pat
As always, people forget the F-35 was never designed or intended as an air superiority aircraft. That's why we have the F-22 ... pity they cut funding after so few were built.

[luigim]

Uuuhmmm....

JAPAN lacks F35!

[DRG]

:eek:...Shocking

The info I have is they have one ( 1 ) that is being tested not operational but if you have better info let us know.....same for South Korea.......and Austrailia.....and Turkey.

[luigim]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-defence-f35-exclusive/exclusive-japan-to-buy-at-least-20-more-f-35a-stealth-fighters-sources-idUSKCN1G507W

https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/japan-deploys-1st-f-35a-stealth-fighter/

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/

[DRG]

Now entered with a new Icon

[Suhiir]

Rather nice documentary on Vietnam era gunships (Spooky, Spectre, Shadow).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhF8PuRsoN0

[luigim]

Old news but it was not in game ( Syrian OOB) as precision Strike Element

https://defence-blog.com/news/syria-received-the-new-russian-su-24m2-all-weather-attack-aircrafts.html

https://www.arabianaerospace.aero/syria-gains-more-upgraded-su-24m2-bombers.html

https://combataircraft.keypublishing.com/2016/07/29/more-fencers-for-syria/

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The only close to Full Operational Capability FOC is the USMC, which I'm almost on the verge of saying they're there. Because a piece of equipment has been used in the field does not mean it's been operationally accepted. Israel comes to mind, though I could be wrong (And I'm sure Amit/Gingertanker will correct me.), does this most of the time with there weapons based on the "environment" it finds itself in. No better proving ground exists except for Russia where they've already done the same in Syria as we did there with the then never proven F-22 and now with the F-35. My predictions for FOC is and this one is again is a "no brainer" USMC, USN (They've had less issues with theirs.). USAF (Starting to just overcome some of the major issues they've had over the last few years.), ISRAEL (Is apparently already adapting some of their own equipment into a couple of them for testing.) and the UK (Though they might Flip/Flop with ISRAEL, the hold up here as I see it might be the BRITEX economic issue.) and maybe JAPAN (They have a sense of urgency with CHINA, especially after President Xi ramped up the PLA last week to prepare for battle against, you got it, TAIWAN. More on that to come soon in the MBT Thread concerning TAIWAN and I can promise some people will be very disappointed by that post.)

The MARINES who would've thought!?! :p ;) and a BIG :D, well done!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

Well, the Harrier is a bit long in the tooth for a front-line air support system, and the USMC DOES rely rather heavily on "airborne artillery"...

[DRG]

..... And both the Russians and Germans used biplanes for night harassment missions throughout WW2 becasue they got the job done...in January 1943 the commander-in-chief of Luftflotte asked for more Hs123 ( a bi-plane ) becasue they got the job done ( he didn't get them )...... the A-10 still files DESPITE many attempts to take it OOS going back to its earliest days because they get the job done...... OV-10 Bronco were brought back in service because they get the job done and as long as there are spare parts I have no doubt the Harrier will continue to get the job done

[Warwick]

Von Richtofen didn't get more Hs 123s because the jigs and tools were scrapped in 1940.

[DRG]

Exactly ..... but they continued to use them until they ran out of wreaks to scavenge parts from. The Hs 123 was kept in service because it was so extremely successful as close air support aircraft.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The HARRIER will survive our deadline and beyond by a couple of years. The A-10 will likely make it to about 2030, by now they all should've been "re-winged" a project started about 3 or 4 years ago.

But after my last post in this thread, I check "my morning papers" and finally someone is confident enough to make a call on the F-35B meeting Full Operational Capability FOC standards, and no it's not the CORPS!! The next will give it away only because I cited this issue in the last post, BREXIT. Yesterdays vote was a disaster for the May government with a no confidence vote to be held later today on the current government.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

These type of issues to this extent are never really a good thing for the military in general. But if this can be worked out by all parties under the current deadline of 29 March, just maybe, Britain by way of the RN will be the first country to declare their F-35s(B) fully operation in 2021-2023. I bet the CORPS & NAVAIR will get off their "butts" and finally declare it before the Brits to save face.

We'll see even the CORPS had admitted some time back they might've "pulled the trigger" a little soon in declaring Initial Operational Capability IOC when they did. This should be an interesting year for these planes. So FOC 2021-2023 for the RN here's your stories...
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/timeline-delivering-carrier-strike/
https://fightersweep.com/10815/uks-royal-navy-doubles-its-order-of-f-35s/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

As long as they can scavenge parts why not continue to use a system that works? I certainly wouldn't try using an OV-10 or an AC-130 vs the Russian air defense system, but against ISIS, why not.

[DRG]

It's been like that from the dawn of time...if you have a rock and the other guy doesn't well then..... chances are you win.... if all you have is an OV-10 but the other guy only has limited small arms well then chances are you win no matter who the other guy is and if you have a slow putt-putt aircraft and the other guy is all ready for high speed jets with a high heat signature well then maybe the other guy is in for a surprise

[Suhiir]

FASTBOAT

Since you're looking into the A4 Skyhawk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLMM_jf6Lwc&t=2227s&index=14&list=WL

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I'm not going to spend much time about the attached Ref. except as it stands it speaks volumes of it's own. It makes me wonder if the USAF didn't run those capability tests in secret between the A-10/F-15SE & F-35A. I'm sure they didn't, but some of you might remember from a couple of years ago, I posted many articles on the planned "competition" between those jets and I'm still waiting for it to happen. Also nothing more has been said about the A-10 except they're still being modernized. Judge for yourself, but to me, the writings on the wall.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/lockheed-f-35-dinged-as-boeings-f-15x-wins-in-air-forces-plan/ar-BBUVShv?li=BBnb7Kz
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/
(This pretty much covers most of the above. The video at bottom was pretty good to in how the F-15FX will compliment the F-22. Also note the propulsion testing for all F-35's is running through DEC 2023 ahead of FOC per the contract just signed.)
https://www.airforce-technology.com/features/2019-february-top-stories-airforce/
(A "BIG" hit in the first article.)

Almost makes me think I own a crystal ball, just maybe, I do!?! :dk: :cool:

Have a good something! Back to the grind later today!?! :D

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[oragus]

That "competition" you are speaking of already happened, but had controversial results. Most envolved complained that it was not composed properly and to the fullest extent it should have been and was biased towards the F-35. I read about that on Military.com. It was never intended to actually put them truly head to head but to satisfy officials. Kind of a "see, we tested them." thing. It was an unfortunate event. Just a FYI.

[blazejos]

In Poland are plans to replace last 16 operational Su-22 and probably ageing Mig-29. They are serious talks that as a 5th generation aircraft F-35 will be chosen.


https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/18/f-35-f-16-f-15-f-a-18-gripen-and-typhoon-these-are-the-contenders-in-the-race-to-replace-polish-mig-29-and-su-22-jets/


Additionally in December 2017 Poland receive first eight advanced jet trainer's Italian M-346

https://translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.defence24.pl%2Fkownacki-odebralismy-osiem-samolotow-m-346-master

Photos of polish M-346 Bielik

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/type-most-liked.php?p=6498

They were buy to replace ageing TS-11 Iskra after half of the century of service as a trainer and cheap second line strike aircraft
https://alchetron.com/PZL-TS-11-Iskra

In Warsaw Pact countries including Soviet Union there were standard trainer Czechoslovak Aero L-29 Delfin then L-39 Albatross. Poland was only country which not follow rules in that subject and build their own trainer aircraft for themselves. Except Poland also India buy TS-11 Iskra and they were retried earlier than in Poland in 2004.https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:W1758_PZL_TS-11_Iskra_Indian_Air_Force_(8447281659).jpg

[Suhiir]

I'm not going to spend much time about the attached <clip>
We've long known top USAF commanders have very little interest in anything that's not an air superiority fighter or long range bomber. Ground support exists primarily because they don't want the US Army having fixed wing aircraft. And let's not even get into their attempts to bring naval aviation under their control. Transport mostly because they need to move parts, tools, and bombs; moving troops and combat equipment is something they do if they're not doing something more important ... like moving a USAF generals golf clubs.

As a replacement for a medium bomber, i.e. the Tornado or Aardvark, the F-35 is a poor choice. It's also a poor replacement for an air superiority fighter, the F-15. It's a tactical ground support aircraft, and at that job it excels.

YES, I have a chip on my shoulder concerning the USAF. They keep telling everyone that will listen they'll bomb the opposition into submission, and it never, ever, works. That's not to say they don't fulfill a valuable role, but in most cases it's one they're forced to fill not one they want to (on an institutional level).

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I missed the competition? Those results don't surprise me that's why my post at the top of the page is relevant talking about the Harrier and A-10.

Poland honestly would be much better off buying the Gripen NG and keep pushing to join Germany and France in building the "EuroLeo". The 4th GEN +++ Gripen NG is just as capable as the borderline 5th GEN F-35, much cheaper to buy, operate and maintain and any road would do for a runway.

Poland needs quality and numbers in jets and tanks to hold back an aggressive resurgent Russia for deterrence and not a handful of Squadrons or less of F-35 fighters. Canada this goes for you to, you both need to get your GRIPEN!?! :p
https://www.airforce-technology.com/comment/forget-f-35-countries-buying-saabs-gripen-fighter-jet/
(Para 2. makes my point.)
https://gripen4canada.blogspot.com/p/the-saab-gripen-ng-capable-and.html
(I can find more like this, a very easy reading comparison between the two. The GRIPEN NG is even faster then the F-35.)

USAF better barracks, tents with AC, prettier bases and supply airlines with pilots. Big Deal!!

On Saturdays we woke up with a drill and had a Field Day, Sliders (Cheese optional.) for lunch, Pizza for mid-rats and on Sundays Prime Rib or Steak and Shrimp all at hundreds of feet beneath the Ocean!! The USAF ain't got nothing on us!! Can't do that flying a Whoopi-d-do jet! :cool: :rolleyes: :D: :doh:

Anyway my USMC buddy is derrnnn right!?! ;)

Well that felt good!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

As this ended up on the top of the page, Post #483 of the previous page is what I was referring to.

[Imp]

Good point Pat unless you have a huge budget the F-35 has to be a bad option at $35000 an hour how much flight time do you think the pilots would get. Gripen is cheap to run for a fighter so they could buy more and still have cash to give each pilot more airtime.

Not entirely convinced on F-35 I have a horrible feeling it could be a lame duck within a few years of being operational.
Unlike F-22 it’s just not stealthy enough, I feel new radars may well make it not very stealthy at all, certainly not enough to outweigh the compromises to the airframe.

[Suhiir]

I'm pretty sure the thought is the F-35 is more survivable as a ground attack aircraft because of it's stealth tech. The Russian air defense network is nothing to sneeze at and an aircraft that (in theory) can survive it is well worth five that can't.

[oragus]

There it is! Someone gets the big picture! Although the U.S. Navy's declaration that the F-35C is ready for combat with only a 12% readiness is concerning.

[WilliamB]

It appears that the U.S. Air Force has put some of their F-117 stealth fighters back into service, although just what they are being used for is not clear. According to an article in the May issue of Combat Aircraft magazine, two F-117s were seen and photographed flying in the R-2508 range complex near Death Valley California on February 26th and 27th. There were two F-16s flying with them. The article also mentions an unconfirmed report from a Dutch magazine called "Scramble" that F-117s were used in Syria in 2017. I have attached a 7zip file containing some of the February photographs from the article. I hope this will prove to be of interest.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Haven't seen anything yet on the F-117, however, the following is what a true "Fighter-Bomber" really looks like. Besides I wonder how happy Japan is at the moment with the F-35 after one crashed in the Pacific. Unfortunately the pilot after calling to break off from a training exercise due to a problem was unable to control his aircraft and apparently couldn't eject. I don't believe they recovered his body.

Anyway...
https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22563768/super-eagle-f-15x/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/22/pentagon-buying-f-15ex-alongside-f-35s-preserve-diversity-official-says.html
https://news.yahoo.com/boeings-f-15ex-air-forces-180000315.html

These jets will provide/serve the Air Force as it's Hyper-Sonic Missile platform. With the upgrades to the airframe, addition of the AESA Radar not only will they be able to fight their way in, complete the mission and fight it's way back out, it'll do it a little more stealthy. The F-15 starting with the "SE" has graduated to a 4th GEN ++ platform.

I need to get back to some "peace and quiet" have a good week!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

Changed the search a little on the F-117 also a note "SCRAMBLE" it is a very respected source concerning aircraft as well.
https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/27/new-photos-of-f-117-stealth-jet-flying-over-panamint-valley-appear-on-social-media/
https://theaviationist.com/2019/03/02/four-f-117s-conducted-covert-air-strikes-in-syria-in-2017-reputable-dutch-scramble-magazine-says/
https://sputniknews.com/military/201903031072915688-f-117-middle-east-syria-iraq/

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This should act as a follow-up to my last post, from DID apparently there were 7 incidents prior to the fatal crash of Japans 13 F-35A fighters. One of the incidents did involve a U.S. built F-35A as well. It is also reported the jet involved in the crash also had an issue prior to it. Japan has grounded all their F-35A fighters UFN. It has been identified that 3 separate systems failures are involved with the 7 prior crash incidents.

This taken from this past Friday the 19th.

"Asia-Pacific
Japan’s first F-35A stealth fighter reportedly made seven emergency landings in the months prior to crashing in the Pacific Ocean last week. The Japanese Air Force started using its fleet of 13 F35As in January. On April 9, the first plane of Mitsubishi assembly crashed. Of the 13 planes provided by the United States to Japan, five have been forced to make emergency landings in seven incidents. The plane that crashed made two of the emergency landings. Final assembly of four of the error reporting planes, including the fighter that went missing, was carried out in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The other aircraft was built and assembled in the US. The crashed fighter reportedly had issues with its cooling and navigation systems twice. Japan grounded its fleet of 13 F-35As in the wake of the crash."

The next ref. was linked from DID were in bold above.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190417/p2a/00m/0na/006000c

Also note NAVAIR has not even declared FOC or for that matter IOC for these jets for either the USN F-35C or the USMC F-35B. The following two refs will show the "contrast" in how they list their jets starting with the F-35 entry.

Never mind, apparently the site is still down since I was on it just before the crash. As they say "Timing is everything." :rolleyes:

For those that do Happy Easter!!

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I keep having flashbacks to the MV-22.
To expensive.
To dangerous.
To whatever ...

Or the AV-8.
No problems for years then they let nuggets fly them and crash, crash, crash.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Like Taiwan, I find that Argentina and the ongoing Falklands situation being somewhat related to the "window of opportunity" available to them and the benefit to each by making or getting if you will, that one piece of equipment that might make the difference in their current situation. For Taiwan that'll be the ABRAMS deal going through. It will cause a "pause" in China's "Sabra Rattling" when it knows it'll face even without D/U armor, a tank that'll still be a match or better to their best tank.

Argentina on the other hand, has a slightly "stronger hand" with an opportunity to reclaim the Falklands IF, they can just get the right fighter in the short term. But time is running out, at best they have 2 years before the window is shut maybe permanently. They have the "harder road" but the best opportunity to accomplish their long stated objective to recall the Falklands.

Britain's main two issues are that it has no long range bombers (Not that the VULCANS were very successful in their missions in the last Falklands War, they weren't.) or fighters (And in hindsight probably wish they'd kept a squadron of HARRIERS/or TORNADOS in active service in the Falklands. They even today would be much better then what Argentina has now.), sufficient air refueling, no carriers, surface combatants and are having issues with their fast attack submarines. In two years Britain will have it's carrier and F-35B fighters, however, only a fool would send in a carrier without it's support ships hence the term "Carrier Battlegroup", the window could possibly be closer to 5 years.

I'll be interesting what China and Russia decide to do. They might just decide to "two fingers in the eye" of two other countries and I wonder who they might be!?! :rolleyes: Ref. 2 is provided for context only as it is two years old now. Ref. 1 is current as of today, which is why I really like "DID", relevant stories continually kept up-to-date.
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/two-to-tango-argentina-looking-for-new-warplanes-022821/
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/argentina-has-three-years-to-retake-the-falklands-e91f35fbd1ab

This could be an interesting situation worth checking on once in awhile. ;)

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[Suhiir]

I suspect the UKs new carrier, tho obviously damn useful if they need to take independent action, is intended more for fleet defense rather then attack (even an F-35B beats no air cover at all) and it's assumed if things go seriously south it'll be operating as part of a US Carrier Battlegroup.