F-3 or F-36A, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 17-1-2007 @ 05:09 AM by kilcoo316
I've chopped and moved your 2 posts around to address them.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That's too simplistic, any vast (paper) armada would be picked up as soon as it gets airborne, if not beforehand. Careful timing as well as SAM systems would negate any hypothetical "wave attack" even though I don't think China can/will try such a foolish thing. In a real world/combat situation (for Japan) you're looking at a two maybe three to one advantage in terms of numbers, anything more is nothing but a theoretical dream. In any case Japan will certainly not run out of missiles before China runs out of planes.

I don't get it? I'm having trouble conceptualizing a scenario in which China and Japan would simultaneously launch every single fighter they have in inventory (all loaded with max amount of missiles). And they all go at each other in one huge air battle. That's not how a real world event would play out, as I said before the F-35 carries enough missiles.


So basically you think the Chinese are gonna fight the war the way the Japanese would want it.... come on!

The Chinese have numbers in their favour, so its pretty damn obvious they'd look to swarm the defence and overload it.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
Japan uses the F-2. Also, can you give me the number of F-16's that have crashed due to an engine malfunction over it entire 35+ year history?


Nope, but it will be alot more than any 2 engined fighter.


Originally posted by WestPoint23
How do you figure? Anyway, like I said a non stealthy EF Typhoon will not be as capable as an F-35 with six internal missiles. Carrying twelve missiles is pointless, no Typhoon is going to have a 12:1 kill ratio (lets not be ridicules here). As such I'm afraid you're going to loose a significant portion of your strike force every time you launch a mission that way.



No typhoon is going to have a 12:1 kill ratio, in the same way no JSF will make 6 kills with 6 missiles consistently (or even a small percentage of the time).


But if 4 JSFs are facing up to 20 attacking Flankers with 10 J-10s on A2G on the follow-up, what happens?

4x6 = 24
4x12 = 48

Hmmm. Doesn't matter if the JSFs do achieve a 6/0 kill ratio, they've no airbase to go back to and are operationally dead.


reply posted on 17-1-2007 @ 06:08 AM by Daedalus3
Wow.. lots of stuff going all over the place here..

Quoting ch1466 style:

>>
Prefer single engine over sea or two?
>>

I definitely prefer 2.. but then one wonders why the naval JSF is in production and ordered by so many in the first place..(USN,RN,RAN?)


>>
thousands of fighters comparable to the F-15..
>>

Here's a Orbat estimate by chinawhite in an old thread:

Chinese Airforce (current, projected *)
76 - Su-27SK
76 - Su-30MK
100 - J-11 (to be upgraded to J-11B standard with PL-12 missiles)
100 - Su-27SKM*
50-100 J-10 (more to be produced later at a rate of 50 planes a year)


The number of J-10s is the variable here. These are the fighters with a capability to reach, engage and bomb JASDF/PACCOM assets(also threat to F-15).
I guess we can include J-8IIs as well.

>>
F-35 stealth ensures survivability etc.
>>

Possibly but I doubt that matters much in this case. With Chinese radar capabilities currently(and in the near future?) not exceeding that of the N010 and the ZhukM(for all a/c considered above), the F-35 will only be an asset if the Chinese deploy a KJ-2000 AWACS nearby to continuously detect opfor and then direct forces to engage. If the MBDA Meteor is employed with the Typhoon I guess the PLAAF/PLANAF AWACS would NOT be deployed in such a forward position deeming it risky.So the Typhoon would not have a glaring disadvantage w.r.t. F-35 here esp since the radars in the PLAAF/PLANAF fighters aren't phenomenal anyways.

>>
More Missiles carried = better
>>

Possibly if they are used properly and in correct proportions,i.e. BVR,WVR ratios.
Again it is important that the fighters have desirable fuel distribution, missile distribution etc. when they transition from BVR to WVR.Actually the Su-27
seems to be a tad lacking when it enters into WVR at certain stages of flight(i.e. when fuel distribution makes the airframe unbalanced). If the Typhoon/F-35 can take advantage of this then..
Also more missiles IS better at BVR because you can engage more targets and also ensure kills by ripple-firing.

More thoughts later..


reply posted on 17-1-2007 @ 04:06 PM by WestPoint23
Originally posted by kilcoo316
The Chinese have numbers in their favour, so its pretty damn obvious they'd look to swarm the defence and overload it.


Realistically the best they could do is a three to one advantage. Theoretical max numbers are pointless when you consider a real world combat environment.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Nope, but it will be alot more than any 2 engined fighter.


Maybe, but the F-16 has proven to be very reliable.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
No typhoon is going to have a 12:1 kill ratio...


So what's the point of having twelve missiles if you are going to get shot down before expending them? The Typhoon will be more vulnerable than the F-35 because it has no stealth, it can be seen and targeted before the F-35 (we can talk about the sensor/avionics suite if you like). That is why the F-35 stands a WAY better chance of accomplishing it theoretical max (internal) missile kill.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
But if 4 JSFs are facing up to 20 attacking Flankers with 10 J-10s on A2G on the follow-up, what happens?


What about the use of other assets? Namely the F-15 and F-2. As I said before a Typhoon will not enjoy the same advantages as an F-35 over Flankers (due to inherent design capabilities). As such what is the point of carrying that many missiles when you can have a higher degree of effectiveness and survivability with six internal ones?

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Hmmm. Doesn't matter if the JSFs do achieve a 6/0 kill ratio, they've no airbase to go back to and are operationally dead.


This hypothetical Japanese AF, will, presumably, consist of more than all four F-35's airborne at the same time.

And I'd just like to point out that we have not considered (likely) US involvement in such a hypothetical scenario.

[edit on 17-1-2007 by WestPoint23]


reply posted on 17-1-2007 @ 05:37 PM by Darkpr0
All this talk about the EF-2000 Typhoon vs. the F-35 Lightning II is cute and all, but altogether irrelevant IMHO. Japan is a rich, populous country and is fully capable of producing its own aircraft. The pictures I see before me depict an aircraft that the Japanese are fully capable of producing. They produce cars in huge amounts, an aircraft wouldn't be the most monstrous leap ever.

Japan is an island, albeit a relatively large one. Thus, the majority of Japanese defense sorties will be interception from a naval-based or a near-mainland attack (North Korea or Russia possibly). I don't know the usual distance of sorties, but I don't believe that it would be large enough to be launched from China or the United States (in the event that these forces become hostile). Thus, a high-speed interceptor will likely be needed to keep forces from moving into a position to bomb Japan. It would be ideal to splash enemy aircraft over the sea to keep their munitions from causing damage anyway, so the farther away you catch the enemy the less possibility of damage there is (quite possibly in the straight between Japan and Korea). This is reflected in the design. We can see the (incredibly) long nose of the aircraft as well as relatively thin shape (compared to the Raptor), which would allow for higher top speeds.

The aircraft is also, however, one-engined and relatively light. This means it will likely be far less expensive than the $200,000,000 US price tag of a Raptor, possibly deviating around 80-100 million. I don't know, I'm not particularly familiar with prices. This is consistent with Japan's current position. They want to upgrade their fleet but aren't in an immediate combat status and don't particularly need expensive death eagles. Thus, they will be able to defend themselves and yet won't need to shell out the wads of cash that the United States is to keep themselves defended.

I'm unfamiliar with current Japanese Navy strength, but it also appears that the aircraft would be somewhat carrier-capable. It's light, compact, and fairly similar to the F-18 actually. I don't believe that a carrier landing would be too impossible in such an aircraft.

Just my 3.141592654 cents.


reply posted on 17-1-2007 @ 06:30 PM by WestPoint23
Originally posted by Darkpr0
Japan is a rich, populous country and is fully capable of producing its own aircraft.


Yes and no. Japan can license produce the F-15 and they built the F-2 which was a 60/40 split between the US and Japan. However the A/C was over budget, late, overweight and under capable. I have nothing against Japan, but you don't wakw up overnight and suddenly built a 5th generation fighter by yourself.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
The pictures I see before me depict an aircraft that the Japanese are fully capable of producing. They produce cars in huge amounts, an aircraft wouldn't be the most monstrous leap ever.


I doubt it. Japan does not have enough recent experience building military jets to be able to produce one on par with the F-35. It is indeed a very monstrous leap to go from building cars to building world class fighter jets. The manufacturing, tech and supply base, in terms of military aircraft, is not mature enough. Also, the aircraft in the OP is not real.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
This means it will likely be far less expensive than the $200,000,000 US price tag of a Raptor, possibly deviating around 80-100 million.


The current F-22A Raptor fly away cost is 120 Million USD, if Japan should order a significant amount the fly away cost will dip below 116 Million USD and continue downward. Cost wise it does not make no sense to produce another disaster like the 100 million F-2 which is comparable to a Block 52/60 Viper when you can purchase an F-22 for just a little more.


reply posted on 18-1-2007 @ 07:31 AM by ch1466
WestPoint23,

>>
I disagree, the F-35, especially the A and C variants are not mainly fighter bombers, they are multi role aircraft.
>>

No. That's why they are delaying testing of the porkmobile version until the very last. The F-35C buys naval compatibility at the cost of up and away performance with the wetted area and aspect ratio drag issues on that 620 square foot wing (bigger than an F-15's IIRR).

While I find it amazing that the USN can trim their inventory purchases down to as few as 170 airframes AND still want to develop a 'new fighter' to do what the F-35C will not, the reality remains that the number on deck is what will ultimately dictate the capabilities of any FADF and the F-35C is never going to be a two-per-boat squadron aircraft.

It's all silly anyway since the weapons you kill a CVSF with are all massively standoff enabled (ballistic or cruise) and 2-per-plane doesn't work to kill supersonic sea skimmers, whether that's a Tomcat/AIM-54 (realworld) combo. Or an F-35C with a pair of AMRAAM internally.

Speaking of which, ALL F-35s are only rated for _two_ Air To Air weapons in the bay:

>
The primary air-to-air armament of the JSF, in U.S. service, is a pair of Raytheon AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs), carried on launchers built intothe inboard weapons bay doors. The details of this installation are significant. Two AMRAAMs constitute a defensive load, not armament for a fighter sweep, and there is no provision to carry more AAMs internally, replacing the bombs. AMRAAM itself, without a short-range AAM to back it up, is mainly a defensive weapon.
>

www.amazon.com...

If there is a counter quote or better yet, picture, proving otherwise, I'd like to see it.


>>
Also, IMO the Typhoon is not a better overall A2A fighter, the Lightning has several key advantages.
>>


Vs. the Su-30MKI it is. Because it will have Meteor operational by 2010 and it's shape will allow it to energize that round even more. Fuel is wrong but offset by external tanks which means it cleanup-rampup-sprintup doesn't come heavy to the fight either.

That said, for all practical purposes the maximum loadout of BVRAAMs on the Flubber remains six if you want any kind of practical CAP endurance or 3X maximum G circles at .9 Mach and 15K at end of radius.

Four on the belly, two on the outboard midwing stations. The inner midwings will have wing tanks. The inboards are not rated for type thanks to aerodynamics issues and the outboards are (I believe) restricted by weight to ASRAAM/IRIS-T/AIM-9 class weapons.

>>
This question is so open ended and in some aspects irrelevant it cannot possibly be used as an argument that fighter X is better than Y.
>>

No, what is foolish is the assumption that wasting a helluva lot of money on the 'fighter mission' means diddly dip if they are functionally unable to prosecute the anti-MRBM mission by which the Japanese Home Islands will be threatened by Korea as China's stalking horse. The certainty of all these nations going ballistic/nuke capable is an acknowledgement that nobody living in the REAL WORLD wants to play machismo bull# games of knights-dueling over paper specs. They want to win and the way they do that is by NOT fighting us as more experienced equals.

Invest in the ABL 747 and you will have both DCA missions covered.

Invest in a 'converted space launcher' and counter hostage the Chinese AND Korean capitals. Shut that 'yapper' Lil' Kim right the hell up.

>>
We can also argue about it's sensor and avionics suite as well. Anyway, with regards to stealth, that's a pretty big difference when it could be the only thing that determines who lives and who does not.
>>

In the DCA game, I will take first pole over first acquisition if only because most of my sensorization should be offboard anyway.

The Su-30 of course has 'growth margin' inherent to the reactivated R-100/Ks-172 program and a few other developments but then again, if I were China and I wanted to cut Japan off at the knees, I would do so by choking off the maritime traffic (oil and raw materials) that she depends on coming out of the PG through the SCS. Something like 70-80% of the worlds critical trade goods goes through a stretch of water maybe 200 miles wide and 1,000 miles long between the straights of Malacca and Taiwan and Japan flat out _can't reach half of it_.

As a 'not-so-lasting legacy lesson' for our screwups in Vietnam, there is no greater example for what Iraq will soon come to mean.

Sun Tzu said it: Never attack your enemy where he is strong.

To which I would add: Never GIVE your enemy strength by justifying a fight over his shores.

Why would China do either by 'making a fight of it' over the bloody home islands where they KNOW we would have to come to help out?

Yet in all else, the 'fighter mission' is ridiculous for the actual number of times in a 1,000 sortie _offensive_ airwar that it is even employed.

Since Japan remains, more or less, neutral, she has no business, forward over the Yellow Sea and I don't see why the Chinese would want to change that by being the aggressors.

>>
Why? In this case it is more appropriate to say that the Flanker's will have an extremely difficult time.
>>

Agreed. The Chinese have blown it by designing fighters based on U.S. hi-lo doctrine rather than ones tailored to their own unique needs and even if creeping encroachment starts to happen, it will occur first in the Malaysian archipelago, not up North.

The latter is what the Norks of Mordor are for fixating our attention upon.

>>
The F-35 has more internal fuel and a higher bypass engine which translates into more endurance and range than the Tiffy.
>>

I repeat, Tacair is worthless if the primary threat is ballistic based and/or you are fighting a 'purely defensive war' in which the smaller assets ability to multiple sorties and diversify aimpoints is rendered redundant by doctrine as well as radius and (manned) time on station coverage issues.

If you want to scare the Chinese co-develop a 767 or 777 tanker model that is competitive with the A-330MRTT and then 'give them' 30-50 of the suckers while buying another 400 of our own.

Better yet, let Japan become a nuclear power (sure as hell 'more secure' than Iran) and show the Chinese that 'two can play at that game' with a _very capable_ (penetrating) nuclear MRBM force less than a 1,000nm off their capital.

I would do the same for the Koreans on a U.S. dual-key basis and a Lance followon.

Resulting in less than HALF the money spent for equal deterrence and an explicit message: nuke-arming feral barbarians half way around the world can lead to very smart people putting equivalent Pizza Hut nuke capabilities right on your damn doorstep _which work_.

Especially if they are ARRMD type naval-launch compatible and/or dual-role conventional/nuke armed using 'not invented here' development to get past INF we would all be better off.

MAD wasn't abandoned because it worked. It was abandoned because we were stupid enough to think that 'once they admitted they lost the Cold War' the bad guys would instantly begin to invest in their economies (which they did, with Western money and expertise which was subsequently nationalized if not outright stolen and copied in the FSU oil and gas industry and PRC commerical production ones respectively) and act like decent people. Instead, we are spending BILLIONS to chase down proliferated WMD technology with conventional overwatch forces while they sit back and giggle at our one-legged asskicking contestant status.

THAT has got to stop. And a micro-Widow won't do a damn thing to make a difference.


KPl.


reply posted on 18-11-2009 @ 02:02 AM by mvdesigns
Text Orange


nice but similar
to the F-22 RAPTOR. Does anyone like this one?Text Red

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Eerie Second World War RAF fighter plane discovered in the Sahara
  Posted 15 days ago with 8 member flags
Stealth chopper based in Nevada
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
HIFiRE Scramjet Research Flight Will Advance Hypersonic Technology
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags