F-35: Spy in the Sky

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10654822

I really hope that the MoD doesn't cut the two carriers or our upcoming F-35 fleet because this aircraft looks like something real special and the ideal replacement for the Harrier.
If we want to remain a credible world power, then we're going to need a credible navy and an aircraft carrier with no aircraft is not very credible.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Jonathan Beale uses a simulator to land the Joint Strike Fighter

Lucky bastage

[Skybird]

technical superiority can compensate for lacking own numbers or numerical superiority of the enemy to only a certain mark - and not more. Already during the cold war, some fighter pilots put the assumption of western analysts and planners that Western superiority in technology could compensate for the Warsaw Patc's numerical superiority, into some reasonable doubt. Additionally the fact remains that with a smaller fleet of units you can only be present at so and so many locations, and not more. Finally, the fewer units there are and the more costly=precious they are, the more costly it becomes every single loss of theirs, and the more costly it becomes to replace it.

For these two reasons, I am critical of these extremly costly platforms, whether it be the Raptor, or the JSF - I am certain that the JSF's ordered number swill see massive cuts, too, like the F-22 has seen them. I cannot argue wqizth that - if you nwant to run a big military, your economy miust be able to finacially afford and maitain that, which simply is not the case, so the nu7mbers miust be reduced. But I wonder if it is wise to have such costly systems, but in so limited quantities like the F-22.

Stanislaw Lem once wrote a satiric book about "Weapons systems of the 21st century". He predicted that by the end of the century the US Air Force would be just three combat planes anymore, which are kept hidden in armoured bunkers and which never fly , since it would be too costly to even lose one of them due to pilot error, accident, or hostile fire.

Finally, let's look at present wars: we see Taliban and El Quaeda and Iraqi rebels and Afghan rebels fighting with relatively primtiive weapons. still they prove to be capable to prevent vcitory to america and her Allies. Thing slike Raptors and JSFs may be nice if needing to deal with the Chiebnse air force, but in the ore liekly sefcnarios of war of the present and forseeable future - they do not help us one little bit, their job could as well be done with old F-4 and A-10 (no hairsplitting please, you get my idea). In asymmetric wars, technology helps you only so far, and not more. What you need is sufficient numbers on platforms and troops. I do not judge here how l.iekly a war with Russia or china is. But I dare saying that asymmtric wars are the wars which have the by far highest probability to form the wars we need to expect for the forseeable future.

In other words: extremely expensive platforms like F-22 and F-35 are giving our military not what it needs for these wars, but gives our armies an equipement that it does not really need, and the cost of more vital variables on which we fail.

And maybe this is a self-deception of ours that we even do want to fall to.

[TLAM Strike]

Agree with you Sky. Our handful of F-22s and JSFs would simply be overwhelmed or withered to extinction though attrition by say the PLAAF.

Much to the dismay of our pilots drones are going to end up being the future. Its only a natural progression, we went form manned aircraft fighting at close range with guns to manned aircraft fighting at long range with self guided weapons now we move to unmanned aircraft fighting with self guided weapons.

Drones like the Reaper are just the thing we need for conflicts like Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Oberon

If we want to remain a credible world power, then we're going to need a credible navy and an aircraft carrier with no aircraft is not very credible.

Look at the RFS Kuznetsov. Remove its air wing and its still a missile cruiser.

I see that as the future of the Carrier much like Japan's new DDH, a flight deck on an Aegis destroyer. If only they could redesign it to include a well deck for LCACs then it would be perfect.

[mako88sb]

Looks like Canada is procuring the F-35 as well. First delivery expected in 2016.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...s.html?ref=rss

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Agree with you Sky. Our handful of F-22s and JSFs would simply be overwhelmed or withered to extinction though attrition by say the PLAAF.

Much to the dismay of our pilots drones are going to end up being the future. Its only a natural progression, we went form manned aircraft fighting at close range with guns to manned aircraft fighting at long range with self guided weapons now we move to unmanned aircraft fighting with self guided weapons.

Drones like the Reaper are just the thing we need for conflicts like Afghanistan.

Look at the RFS Kuznetsov. Remove its air wing and its still a missile cruiser.

I see that as the future of the Carrier much like Japan's new DDH, a flight deck on an Aegis destroyer. If only they could redesign it to include a well deck for LCACs then it would be perfect.

Some weeks ago I read that the US military already trains more drone pilots than fighter/bomber pilots - since years! I also read that surprisngly drone pilots are claimed to be more pro0ne to combat stress and PTS, becaseu different to fighter pilots who do not see that effect on the ground when they release the bomb, and do not see what is happenign to their infantry buddies who are fighting in firefights for the lives, drone pilots are fully aware of both these things - their "psychological distance" to the violence is much closer than for a jet pilot. It sounds queer, but having been busy a bit with traumatisation mechanism mywself in earlier times, I do not find the claim absurd at all. to see all this brutality at close range via optics, to see buddies maybe sufferign and being helpless oneself - and then facing the end of your shift of flying a drone on the other side of the planet, leaving the base and go home to your wife and kids in your sweet home in dear old America, is something that can put pressure on a man's mind - by the harsh contrast as well as the echoes of the pictures and possible helplessness that was experienced if own troops on the ground got a beating.

So, drones maybe will save more pilots from bullets and missiles and crashes, but somethign tells me that the numbers of mentally wounded (which imo should be seen as fully equal to a physical injury) will go up.

[TLAM Strike]

Correct Sky, its much like the situation in Vietnam where helicopters allow troops to be in battle far much more than in WWII or Korea. In Vietnam troops could expect to make contact with the enemy something like 20 days every month where in WWII it was about 1-2 days a month.

Drones allow pilots to fly more missions since its not as physically stressful (no Gs) and they could (in theory) switch aircraft in flight since landing and basically flight is automated.

Where a fighter pilot gets the call and zips overhead dropping a GBU then goes home since they are out of fuel, this drone pilot is there for the duration of the fight since they have such amazing endurance seeing whats happening and relaying it to the troops on the ground.

which imo should be seen as fully equal to a physical injury

500% Agree! I've heard stories on how the DoD has screwed over guys who developed PTSD in the middle of their hitch and couldn't redeploy for another tour.

Of course I've heard stories on them screwing over guys with physical injuries too. I know a guy who was shipped out to Saudi with a severe back injury that required several surgeries to fix.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Agree with you Sky. Our handful of F-22s and JSFs would simply be overwhelmed or withered to extinction though attrition by say the PLAAF.

Much to the dismay of our pilots drones are going to end up being the future. Its only a natural progression, we went form manned aircraft fighting at close range with guns to manned aircraft fighting at long range with self guided weapons now we move to unmanned aircraft fighting with self guided weapons.

Drones like the Reaper are just the thing we need for conflicts like Afghanistan.

Look at the RFS Kuznetsov. Remove its air wing and its still a missile cruiser.

I see that as the future of the Carrier much like Japan's new DDH, a flight deck on an Aegis destroyer. If only they could redesign it to include a well deck for LCACs then it would be perfect.

Good points raised by both TLAM and Skybird on the future of air to ground operations and perhaps even to an extent the future of air to air operations. I'm all in favour of drones, particularly against low tech opponents such as the Taliban or other insurgents. Admittedly there is the heavy drawback of not having a proper feel for the area, which is probably going to hinder the employment of ground drones for a time, but I dare say it won't be long at all before Drone tanks come through. Then all that is left is infantry...can't really drone that just yet.

However, I think it would be a mistake to rule out the possibility of future engagements against a better equipped enemy, but likewise it perhaps would not be wise to focus on technological superiority over numeracy. An enemy like China (to pick a stereotype out of my arse) could throw dozens upon hundreds of units at a target with little to no regard for their safety, it can absorb dozens of casualties without any real problem, and I do ponder if technology can be overwhelmed by numeracy, such as in the case for the Crap It Won't Shoot system back in the 1980s which was theorised would struggle with a mass missile strike but naturally, with any system it's a guessing game until it comes into service.


Oh...and TLAM, I agree with you, but I suspect the MoD wouldn't want to follow the Russian example and would stick to using an aircraft carrier for aircraft, missile cruiser for missiles, etc, etc, etc. We are rather rigid like that during peacetime

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Oh...and TLAM, I agree with you, but I suspect the MoD wouldn't want to follow the Russian example and would stick to using an aircraft carrier for aircraft, missile cruiser for missiles, etc, etc, etc. We are rather rigid like that during peacetime

Point of interest: you have no missile cruisers.

I don't know about the MoD being so rigid. The Invincible class had a air defense missile (sea dart) originally. Your ASW frigates are larger than your AAW destroyers. You also adopted the pumpjet years before us.

Then all that is left is infantry...can't really drone that just yet.

I say they are half way there to err.. "Drones"

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Point of interest: you have no missile cruisers.

I don't know about the MoD being so rigid. The Invincible class had a air defense missile (sea dart) originally. Your ASW frigates are larger than your AAW destroyers. You also adopted the pumpjet years before us.

I say they are half way there to err.. "Drones"

I was using an example Our Traffie boats have most of our missiles IIRC.
True, but I don't know if the MoD would think outside the box in regards to putting LAMs on a carrier, but perhaps cost cuts will inspire them somehow. At the moment though it mainly seems to be a case of 'do more with less'.

They're well on their way to ground drones, although I'd say that rather than exoskeletons, I'd say that the drones they'd use instead of humans would be that dragonfly helicopter thing that I think Steamwake posted a while back, it can get in through windows and doors and if they get it to carry a payload or a micro-MG then it could be a fairly formidable weapon, although perhaps prone to being batted out of the air.

[Weiss Pinguin]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I say they are half way there to err.. "Drones"

And that kind of stuff is why I'm thankful to have been born in in the last two decades

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10654822

I really hope that the MoD doesn't cut the two carriers or our upcoming F-35 fleet because this aircraft looks like something real special and the ideal replacement for the Harrier.
If we want to remain a credible world power, then we're going to need a credible navy and an aircraft carrier with no aircraft is not very credible.

You simply can't predict any more considering the cuts that are being made across every spectrum of government spending

[CaptainHaplo]

Finally, let's look at present wars: we see Taliban and El Quaeda and Iraqi rebels and Afghan rebels fighting with relatively primtiive weapons. still they prove to be capable to prevent vcitory to america and her Allies.

Skybird - I would say that while high technology is great, its not the primitive weapons that keep the Allies from winning - its the lack of willingness to fight this as a war.

10 B29's could end the war in Afghanistan. Each with functional remakes of a Fat Man. Each plane would fly extremely limited sorties before the problem was solved. WHY? Because when its die or rat out the terrorists - people will choose to rat out the terrorists. And for those "insurgent strongholds" - well - a few mushroom clouds and the problem is gone.
Ain't pretty, ain't nice - but then again - war isn't. Something the Allied Forces in this conflict seem to have forgotten.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Skybird - I would say that while high technology is great, its not the primitive weapons that keep the Allies from winning - its the lack of willingness to fight this as a war.

10 B29's could end the war in Afghanistan. Each with functional remakes of a Fat Man. Each plane would fly extremely limited sorties before the problem was solved. WHY? Because when its die or rat out the terrorists - people will choose to rat out the terrorists. And for those "insurgent strongholds" - well - a few mushroom clouds and the problem is gone.
Ain't pretty, ain't nice - but then again - war isn't. Something the Allied Forces in this conflict seem to have forgotten.

I think if you'd met some of the people you're talking about turning into shadows burned into the glass that was once sand you'd have a different view, CH. They're just people. Many of them are good people. I know we've had this discussion before, and I know your opinion won't likely change unless you have a chance to interact with them on a daily basis, but I'll still ask you to believe me when I say that simply deciding to destroy a life or a family is a lot harder when you have met them face to face. Moreso when you finger is on the trigger and they are looking back at you through your front-sight post. Not all terrorists are Muslims, and not all Muslims are terrorists.

I think you already know this, and I think that if you had the option to instantly annihilate every Islamic terrorist, along with anyone connected with them or even in the same area, you wouldn't do it. I think you wouldn't do it because you're better than that. You are conscious enough of the threat by virtue of understanding the threat to be aware of the kind of thinking that generates the threat in the first place, yes?

Have a care when imposing your judgement upon others, especially when that judgement carries irreversible consequences.

[ajrimmer42]

t'would be great if we got some JSFs, always liked them. Although that may be something to do with the fact that my dad used to be project manager of the team making the engine swivel nozzle exhaust thingamajig at the back. Having said that I think it's a shame the Boeing one didn't get chosen as I thought it looked awesome!



Look at it's big smile lol