Sweden to buy 60 next-generation Gripen despite Swiss pullout, cites the situation in Ukraine as one
120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45841067]Thanks, has the F35B made any significant improvement in the last few years or has it been issue after issue still?[/QUOTE]
It has come a long way. Keep in mind that the F35 is still not designed to be a dogfighter, but a BVR air superiority craft. In all likelihood, you would see similar combat effectiveness against enemy aircraft with the F35B as you would the A or C, as straight up speed and maneuverability statistics don't really matter that much here.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;45841065]Mind you, the eurofighter is last generation. The gripens should be fourth gen though. And then the f35 came along, originally envisioned as something akin to a 4th gen eurofighter. (just look at the participating nations).
I guess an eurofighter II might always happen, particularly the more negative clout the f35 gets.[/QUOTE]
Last gen is fourth gen? Unless you're counting 4.5
[QUOTE=Anders118;45841052]The U.K. lacks catapult based aircraft carriers capable of supporting the conventional takeoff naval model of the F35, the C variant.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Apparently we are too cheap to add catapults to the two new Queen Elizabeth class carriers (£2 Billion per ship), so we are stuck with the B variant...
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45840703]The plane won't be really stealthy if it has to carry weapons on its external pylons. The A10 was hit on the engine. Which suggest that it was hit by a heat seeking missile. Add to this that CAS aircraft are visible from the ground any stealth capabilities are useless, because even Anti Air guns can target and shoot at it.
As the F35 doesn't feature the same vector thrust nozzles which reduce the heat signature as the F22, it will give an even bigger target than the A10 when the pilot has to do evasive maneuvers when he turns on the afterburner. All this extra weight because of the weapons makes it harder to do these maneuvers which means that the pilot either drops all the weapons and immediately returns home because he simply ran out of stuff to deploy, or he risks being shot down. Even the F22 uses 2 engines in case that something goes wrong.
In the development of technology you always go for the worst case scenario. Civilian Airliners have 3 computers so when 1 of those is malfunctioning and is sending wrong data the other 2 can overrule it and the plane can still fly. Most combat airplanes and helicopters feature 2 engines. The Phantom aircraft had no cannon at first because people thought that the missile technology will make guns obsolete. Then Vietnam happend which made them reconsider their decision. Redundancy is good. It saves lives.
And if you think stealth is the new invincible shield, then have a look at this:
[url]http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/vega-31-shot-down/[/url]
And this plane was specialized in stealth. And flying at high altitude. And you call me ignorant.
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
There are still armies using old tanks which can still be swiss cheesed. If you hit modern tanks at the right angle you can still take them out. And the cannon isn't only used for killing tanks, but also providing suppressive fire for ground troops.[/QUOTE]
That bomber was only shot down due to rain affecting the coating (no longer an issue) and the fact that they flew the same flight pattern over and over again. They had to specifically modify their ground stations (to the point where they would also be terrible vs regular aircraft) in order to even know they were there and even when they knew they existed, the radar couldn't tell them where with any degree of accuracy. On top of all of that, they could only activate the ground stations for a brief few seconds at a time to avoid being detected and destroyed (now likely impossible, as they will immediately detect you.) They even genrrally knew what targets were going to be hit, so they could specifically dedicate resources to shooting them down.They wasted shitloads of missiles and had to move launch sites every time.
ONE was shot down in the HISTORY of the aircraft. That is a nearly unrivalled success and it certainly wasn't for lack of use.
I don't even know why I come into military aircraft threads anymore since they always turn into F-35 shitfests every single time
I think the problems is that all the people who have the expertise, the data and assets to be able to judge whether or not we ACTUALLY need X or Y type of new plane, tank, helicopters etc. are usually part of the military-industrial complex [B]OR[/B] are under huge pressure by all the politicians lobbied by the military-industrial complex.
Literally everyone here derives their information from those two types of experts.
Lone critics are often dismissed as not having access to the "big picture".
If they're a general, "they aren't an engineer, they don't know about the actual performance."
If they're an engineer "they're not professional strategist, they don't have the ability to see what's needed on the field."
I've yet to hear of a panel of experts that are completely independent and separate of any sort of conflict of interest with the military-industrial complex actually criticizing decisions over military spending.
[QUOTE=Jund;45841112]Last gen is fourth gen? Unless you're counting 4.5[/QUOTE]
yeah was a generation off for some reason. The euro typh is considered 4.5 as far as I know.
As to the people talking about the gau-8 - remember that the a10 actually has quite a few other stuff like jdams and mavericks as well.
People also seem to forget to remember the psychological impact of a heavily armored tank with wings as well. Fear can be as powerful or more powerful a weapon as a GAU-8 or air to ground missile.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45841308]The same can be said for the F-35 though. What's the psychological impact of a vehicle that flies around fucking your dudes up, and you have no means of actually locking on to it to kill it? The F-35 also has the added benefit of being able to fly CAS without having established air superiority.[/QUOTE]
That's kinda up to debate though. Can they fly CAS and keep safe from air targets with a CAS loadout or do they merely depend on their stealth to keep them safe.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45841224]Or.. you know.. the requirements of the programs are classified.. because you don't want the enemy knowing what your requirements for a platform are. And anyone who claims to be an "expert" is either making educated guesses, or is leaking classified information.
I hear a lot of armchair generals clamoring about "muh A-10, etc etc" and attempting to shit all over the F-35; but considering the F-35 hasn't been combat tested (and hopefully wouldn't ever be), and considering half the things that make the F-35 effective are classified, i'd say it's not fair to say "oh the F-35 isn't going to be an effective CAS aircraft, the A-10 is super effective, muh 30mm, muh gau-8". You do realize they've said this about every craft, and if we followed this logic we'd still be using the A-36A.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's quite convenient isn't it? When you've got such a big budget as the US, you don't care about efficiency and that's part of the problem. The people that make the aircraft are also the only ones who knows how good the airplane actually is and with the amount of money they have it's easy to bribe all the experts and lobby all the politicians that you're aircraft is worth it in the end. The project is so big and so time-consuming that actually it's better to pour even more more money on the project (if there are delays and problems) to push the whole thing to completion than admit it wasn't necessary or that it wasn't effective enough.
We're talking about one of the biggest, most expensive, most complicated, most long-term, most profitable business on Earth. When things such as "patriotism" and "sovereignty" are at stake, its not a hard thing for the military-industrial complex to justify itself. You don't want the next-best weapons to protect yourself, you want the [B]BEST[/B] so of course you won't spare any expenses.
The defense budget is probably the only thing whose efficiency isn't measured by any standards such as in jobs created or lives saved per X amount of dollars, just some vaguely defined definition of "safety" determined at the whims of the government and industries.
The whole military-industrial complex is the embodiment of the term "conflict of interest".
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;45841117]Yep. Apparently we are too cheap to add catapults to the two new Queen Elizabeth class carriers (£2 Billion per ship), so we are stuck with the B variant...[/QUOTE]
Well it was either two STOVL carriers or one CATOBAR, I think this is the right outcome. Keep in mind CATOBAR would have been considerably more expensive, certainly in the short term at least, and that means cuts elsewhere that could have hurt big. The US might be financially blessed enough to be able to afford ten CATOBAR carriers and all the toys to go with them to make them effective, but they're alone in that regard.
[QUOTE=wraithcat]That's kinda up to debate though. Can they fly CAS and keep safe from air targets with a CAS loadout or do they merely depend on their stealth to keep them safe.[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't send out an entire sortie of aircraft in purely ground attack configuration, you would have some equipped for anti-air and, depending on the evolution of the conflict, either utilizing or not utilizing the external hard-points depending on how large the threat was.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45837861] The F-35 does win contracts for a reason.[/QUOTE]
Bribery?
[QUOTE=Fippe;45840685][B]it's got a huge single engine to propel it's heavy ass around, resulting in high emissions - not ideal for stealth[/B][/QUOTE]
A single engine versus what? Two engines? Or maybe flying on dreams?
[url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html[/url]
[url]http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html[/url]
For anyone who wants a nice read.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;45843245][url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html[/url]
[url]http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html[/url]
For anyone who wants a nice read.[/QUOTE]
A lot of that is bullshit. It pops up in every F35 thread. What isn't flat out wrong, is either misleading or formerly true at best. Much of it compares the, then current, capabilities of an actual f35 early prototype (IE NOT even remotely complete) with the [I]theoretical[/I] abilities of the PAK FA. It is hugely biased.
The F-35 is [I]not an awful plane[/I], contrary to popular belief. It's way expensive, yes, but it's pretty fuckin' good, too. The point most people bring up is the whole A-10 replacement thing, which yes, seems pretty stupid, given how very specialized and perfected the A-10 is for it's role, when compared to the F-35 that's supposed to replace it by taking more of the F-16's role of multirole fighter-bomber.
The main reason people cite for the replacement to be stupid is GAU-8. But most people forget, the GAU-8 has been useless against tanks from the very day it was built. It's an infantry, light fortification and medium vehicle killer. Against tanks, you use AGMs. Woosh, boom, not brrrt. Which the F-35 is every bit as capable of as the A-10 is. They carry the same missile-load, far as my memory serves me. What the A-10 does do better than the F-35 is going slow, and doing so for a long while, but this really only is useful when you got full air superiority and low chance of enemy AA, even the MANPAD and gun-based AA that faster jets can largely ignore. As others have said, yes, the A-10 can take a beating, but the F-35 can avoid getting that beating all together.
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
Ideally, the A-10 should prolly be kept around for a COIN role while the F-35 takes on the more 'serious' CAS role, but that doesn't really seem likely (or logistically and financially practical) these days.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45843270]A lot of that is bullshit. It pops up in every F35 thread. What isn't flat out wrong, is either misleading or formerly true at best. Much of it compares the, then current, capabilities of an actual f35 early prototype (IE NOT even remotely complete) with the [I]theoretical[/I] abilities of the PAK FA. It is hugely biased.[/QUOTE]
I remember to have read somewhere that the F-35 was kinda developed as cheaper alternative to the F-22, but seeing as the price is now almost the same, does it even hold any real advantage? Not to go by the Wiki specs again, but the F-22 is faster and seems to be able to fly longer. Is it all down to the electronic magic done on the F-35?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;45843353]I remember to have read somewhere that the F-35 was kinda developed as cheaper alternative to the F-22, but seeing as the price is now almost the same, does it even hold any real advantage? Not to go by the Wiki specs again, but the F-22 is faster and seems to be able to fly longer. Is it all down to the electronic magic done on the F-35?[/QUOTE]
And F-35B and C being carrier-based. And CAS, which F-22 isn't really optimized very well for.
Also, reading up on F-22...
[QUOTE]In February 2007, while attempting its first overseas deployment to the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan, six F-22s of 27th Fighter Squadron flying from Hickam AFB, Hawaii, experienced multiple software-related system failures while crossing the International Date Line (180th meridian of longitude).[/QUOTE]
That's hilarious. It's like the y2k bug, but real, and fucking up navigation for jet fighters :v:
[url]http://goo.gl/5jEorQ[/url] Slovenian Airforce reporting in!
[QUOTE=Riller;45835918]Better than us Danes, still stuck with our dick in the meatgrinder that is F-35.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45836386]Should have bought the Euro-Fighter[/QUOTE]
As fine a plane as the Typhoon is, it's ridiculously expensive. The Gripen may not measure up to most current generation fighters in terms of performance, but considering the pricetag it's got a whole lot more bang for the buck.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;45843245][url]http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html[/url]
[url]http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html[/url]
For anyone who wants a nice read.[/QUOTE]
ausairpower is notorious for its F-35 hate, don't pay it any mind
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=oakman26;45844964]u idiot.
I don't know where people started to think that the gun was supposed to kill tanks.
The gun fires (AP) ammo similar to (AP) ammo fired by IFVs, and those don't kill tanks.
The A-10 was designed to kill a bunch of soviet tanks in the event of them invading across Germany, and the primary weapon for that was the AGM65 maverick, not the gun.
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
How is it fair to compare a 2000 lb cruise missle with a 500lb missle.
thats like saying A-10 is useless because death star killed planets.
(hyperbole intended)[/QUOTE]
A-10's slow speed and huge RCS makes it nearly impossible to use against forces with equipment that isn't 40 years old
A Strike Eagle or Superbug could drop Mavericks and actually survive against up to date Fulcrums and Flankers
It can't effectively kill modern tanks because it has to be escorted by fighters that can just drop the things themselves
The A-10 was designed to combat old Soviet style tactics (many of which were employed by the Iraqis during Desert Storm), which were made obsolete by modern weapons and satellites
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45836386]Should have bought the Euro-Fighter[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerstlauer_Euro-Fighter"]?[/URL]
:v:
[QUOTE=shutter_eye5;45839305]I personally think the USN should bring the F-14D's out of retirement and use as is. Most are already fairly up to date with avionics and all, some may require a computer architecture update. I believe when it comes to carrier-based air superiority fighters, the F-14 is king. The F/A-18 should be supplementing the roles of the F-14. Until the USN starts receiving it's F-35C's and Marine flying units get theirs also, the F-14 should still be utilised.[/QUOTE]
What F-14s?
The majority of them were destroyed so that the Iranians wouldn't have a black market of spare parts to keep their own flying. The ones that weren't destroyed have been neutered and sent to museums with their wings clipped.
The only airworthy F-14s left in the world are now falling apart in Iran. It's a God damned crime what happened to the Tomcat.
[img]http://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/PictureDatabase/F014/AN1K0016_158988_F014A_AMARC.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=oakman26;45844964]u idiot.
I don't know where people started to think that the gun was supposed to kill tanks.
The gun fires (AP) ammo similar to (AP) ammo fired by IFVs, and those don't kill tanks.
The A-10 was designed to kill a bunch of soviet tanks in the event of them invading across Germany, and the primary weapon for that was the AGM65 maverick, not the gun.
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
How is it fair to compare a 2000 lb cruise missle with a 500lb missle.
thats like saying A-10 is useless because death star killed planets.
(hyperbole intended)[/QUOTE]
That is inaccurate. The GAU-8 platform was designed from the get-go as a tank killer weapon. That is the entire reason they essentially built an airframe around a gun. The GAU-8 is the A10's main asset. Further, it is definitely a fair comparison to compare the AGM-158 to the 65. I was listing how the F35 carries better AGM weapon systems than the A10 does. The AGM-158 is in fact superior to the 65. Care to pull any more facts out of your ass?
Tanks have evolved
The A-10 has not
End of story
The GAU-8 has a great deal of difficulty destroying any main battle tank.
We also don't fucking fight MBT's basically ever.
We tend to fight guerrillas and other lightly mechanized forces. They hide in buildings and makeshift cover and spread themselves out over high ground so they can shoot at our forces. They do not tend to even possess surface to air missiles, but they do occasionally sport AAA due to the ridiculously simple nature of AAA construction.
Lets play this out.
You show up as an F-35. Your stall speed is quite high, so locating the enemy infantry is difficult because you can't slow down. Your sensor package is advanced, but has difficulty locating infantry in cover. You are given better instructions by infantry on the ground who are being engaged by the enemy and deploy paveways onto the building where they are supposedly hiding. While you pull out of the bombing run your main engine takes fire from AAA and fails. You crash. You successfully bombed one target, but the opposing force was actually spread out across several locations. Even assuming you had not been shot down, you simply don't carry enough ordinance internally to drop bombs on everything.
Meanwhile the A-10 shows up. The A-10 can slow way the fuck down. It accurately locates the infantry, and can even have a chance of recognizing possible AAA locations. It expects to be shot at. All of its maneuvers are designed around the idea that they will be shot at by AAA and surface to air missiles. It strafes the target, and while it deals less damage per square foot than a paveway, the damage is widespread and chews up the entire enemy position, wounding or maiming a significant portion of the enemy. These few bursts of cannon fire have cost a fraction of the GPS guided paveways, done a better job, and when the A-10 gets hit by AAA when pulling out of a gun run, it returns home because it has two engines, a better tail design, and armor plating that protects it. The same cannon fire that will destroy an F-35 may fail to even penetrate the armor plating on the A-10 engines. The F-35 may have a longer range, but the A-10 will gladly launch off dirt runways because it was designed to launch out of basically anywhere with limited unimproved runway space.
The A-10 is cheap and simple. Cheap to maintain, cheap to repair, cheap to use. It is a cost efficient way of combating the enemy type we will likely continue to encounter for the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45847364]The GAU-8 has a great deal of difficulty destroying any main battle tank.
We also don't fucking fight MBT's basically ever.
We tend to fight guerrillas and other lightly mechanized forces. They hide in buildings and makeshift cover and spread themselves out over high ground so they can shoot at our forces. They do not tend to even possess surface to air missiles, but they do occasionally sport AAA due to the ridiculously simple nature of AAA construction.
Lets play this out.
You show up as an F-35. Your stall speed is quite high, so locating the enemy infantry is difficult because you can't slow down. Your sensor package is advanced, but has difficulty locating infantry in cover. You are given better instructions by infantry on the ground who are being engaged by the enemy and deploy paveways onto the building where they are supposedly hiding. While you pull out of the bombing run your main engine takes fire from AAA and fails. You crash. You successfully bombed one target, but the opposing force was actually spread out across several locations. Even assuming you had not been shot down, you simply don't carry enough ordinance internally to drop bombs on everything.
Meanwhile the A-10 shows up. The A-10 can slow way the fuck down. It accurately locates the infantry, and can even have a chance of recognizing possible AAA locations. It expects to be shot at. All of its maneuvers are designed around the idea that they will be shot at by AAA and surface to air missiles. It strafes the target, and while it deals less damage per square foot than a paveway, the damage is widespread and chews up the entire enemy position, wounding or maiming a significant portion of the enemy. These few bursts of cannon fire have cost a fraction of the GPS guided paveways, done a better job, and when the A-10 gets hit by AAA when pulling out of a gun run, it returns home because it has two engines, a better tail design, and armor plating that protects it. The same cannon fire that will destroy an F-35 may fail to even penetrate the armor plating on the A-10 engines. The F-35 may have a longer range, but the A-10 will gladly launch off dirt runways because it was designed to launch out of basically anywhere with limited unimproved runway space.
The A-10 is cheap and simple. Cheap to maintain, cheap to repair, cheap to use. It is a cost efficient way of combating the enemy type we will likely continue to encounter for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]
Your hypotheticals are based off of thin air
How do you know what the stall speed of an F-35 is? How do you know the F-35 will have difficulty locating infantry with the most advanced electronics suite in the entire world? How does a stealth craft with an 1000+ km range AGM-158 get hit by triple A?
What IS fact however, is that our enemies won't be throwing stones at us forever. Old weapons are no longer being made and fall into disrepair while newer ones move around through the black market
Just take a look at ISIS, take a look at Syria. If dirt farmers want and can get their hands on modern equipment, why the fuck would we want to keep using old equipment?
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
If it were up to half of FP, we'd be caught with our pants down and shot in the dick
[QUOTE=Jund;45847595]Your hypotheticals are based off of thin air
How do you know what the stall speed of an F-35 is?[/quote]
Because it looks similar to other aircraft with a high stall speed. Meanwhile the A-10 sacrifices much in order to gain a low stall speed. Hence the unusual tail and wing design.
[quote]How do you know the F-35 will have difficulty locating infantry with the most advanced electronics suite in the entire world? [/quote]
Because Humans still have superior pattern recognition to machines by a fair margin. A computer will do extremely well at identifying incoming enemy aircraft with good visibility, but a human tends to be better at making a best guess. Especially when dealing with little people running around the ground in partial cover. In many cases they may not even directly see their targets, the pilots may get instructions like "the blue roofed building" or the "grove of trees on the north side of the pass", which mean nothing to the awesome sensor suite on the F-35 and are going to need the pilot to be able to slow down and look for them.
[quote] How does a stealth craft with an 1000+ km range AGM-158 get hit by triple A?[/quote]
Because you drop bombs 90% of the time. Missiles are extremely expensive and the AGM-158 will be rarely employed because tomahawks are roughly the same price and easier to deploy.
[quote]What IS fact however, is that our enemies won't be throwing stones at us forever. Old weapons are no longer being made and fall into disrepair while newer ones move around through the black market[/quote]
True, which is why we should have the F-35 but still keep the A-10. Even at reduced numbers the A-10 is too handy right now to discard.
[quote]Just take a look at ISIS, take a look at Syria. If dirt farmers want and can get their hands on modern equipment, why the fuck would we want to keep using old equipment?
[/QUOTE]
Because most of the time they don't have modern equipment. And even then they are not very proficient at using any of it.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45848458]We're using the B-1b for more CAS than we are the A-10, with good reason. Longer loiter times, more ordinance. The A-10 is rapidly loosing relevance in the modern battlefield, better to retire it now than attempt to use it against anyone competent.[/QUOTE]
I think GunFox does at least have a point though. The A10 has proven itself invaluable in counter-insurgency operations. I suppose that fact alone makes maintaining a small squadron of them worthwhile.
There haven't been any real air-to-air threats in the last 25 years or so.
Rather spend the money on having more birds in the air to support w/e is going on instead off having top-notch dogfighting capability.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.