Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters

tphuang said:

I'm confused here. I thought UK and Australia would be getting the full blown version of JSF. Especially UK, I haven't read anything that said the Brits won't be getting the full stealth version, but just that they are not getting the full ToT that they wanted. Either way, UK can at least play hardball with the Americans by talking about Rafale-M. What can the Australians do? Get more super hornets?

Click to expand...

The australians should try to develop some stealth technology on it's own, maybe with russian or french asistance. Perhaps a new RAM or something. When the f-35s arrive, Australia can coat them with a better RAM. If stealth is such a high prority in Australia, they might as well.

This is why America has so few friends now.:coffee:

Andrew said:

Thanks for this info.

It seems to me that the Navy is resting on its laurels. When these plans were conceived it was vastly superior, the former Soviet navy rotting away. However, the world is changing. In a regional scenario, a carrier strike group may well have to face difficult situations within the next 15 to 20 years.

The Su-30 design has space for a very capable radar and indeed, should such an appliance be installed at some time in the near future, the major advantag the F-35 enjoys today will have been eroded. The problem I see is that the Navy is going to have to stick to the F-18F and the F-35 for the next few decades. Meanwhile, China and others will acquire and develop new kind of aircraft. To be sure, the JSF's radar and electronics can be upgraded but the basic airframe will stay the same.

In the past, the Navy paid great attention to air dominance, today, in my eyes it seems to be slowly steering away from this. Given the fact that perhaps only relatively few F-22s are going to be bought and bearing in mind that the carriers are true "front line assets" which are sent into a critical area first, this might be a dangerous path it is heading down.

with kind regards
Andrew

Click to expand...

You are concentrating on one field of the USN. Though its true that naval aviation is not yet on par with the USAF in terms of air dominance, don't discredit it first. There is more to naval warfare than just having a top of the line air superiority fighter. While true that the super bug does not have the range and speed of the F-14, it is a more capable all around aircraft.

"You are concentrating on one field of the USN. Though its true that naval aviation is not yet on par with the USAF in terms of air dominance, don't discredit it first. There is more to naval warfare than just having a top of the line air superiority fighter. "

Agreed. In fact, my intention was to discuss naval aviation.

"While true that the super bug does not have the range and speed of the F-14, it is a more capable all around aircraft."

Clearly, it is a more capable all around aircraft as the F-14 dates back to the 70s but then, the whole environment the F-35 is going to have to face up to has changed. There are going to be Su-30s, J-10s and perhaps, in 15 years, a next generation Chinese fighter out there. Along the coasts, deadly S-300 systems will be waiting.

My point is really that if we look at the evolution of American fighter design, and if we omit the discussion about electronic capabilities and networking etc., then we do have to concede that the F-35 and the F-18F, both of which have cost lots of money to develop and which will be deployed in large numbers, are not a great step forward. In absolute terms, mainly due to their superior electronics, they may be more deadly than anything the US Navy has fielded until today, but still, I would say that these designs cannot compare in significance to the the F-4 Corsair, the Phantom or the Tomcat. Similarly, nobody would disagree that the British Navy of today could in a matter of hours sink the fleet of the Empire of 1929, however, nevertheless, Britain's overall decline since then is obvious.

I am trying to see this aspect in a larger, perhaps too broad a perspective.

With kind regards
Andrew

Andrew said:

My point is really that if we look at the evolution of American fighter design, and if we omit the discussion about electronic capabilities and networking etc., then we do have to concede that the F-35 and the F-18F, both of which have cost lots of money to develop and which will be deployed in large numbers, are not a great step forward. In absolute terms, mainly due to their superior electronics, they may be more deadly than anything the US Navy has fielded until today, but still, I would say that these designs cannot compare in significance to the the F-4 Corsair, the Phantom or the Tomcat. Similarly, nobody would disagree that the British Navy of today could in a matter of hours sink the fleet of the Empire of 1929, however, nevertheless, Britain's overall decline since then is obvious.

I am trying to see this aspect in a larger, perhaps too broad a perspective.

With kind regards
Andrew

Click to expand...

You are concentrating solely on the F-35 and F-18F airframe to gauge the net advantage of the USN over its contemporaries. You are forgetting other advances such electronic warfare, electronic counter measures (towed decoys for the F-18), and low observability. This used in conjunction with aircraft still gives the USN an edge to any forseeable Flanker variant you can provide.

Using the USAF advancement as the basis of USN naval avaition advance is not accurate. Each branch has its on unique requirements. For example in the navy, each aircraft has a maximum recoverable weight, and as you add weapons, tanks and pods, there is less gas available to make a safe recovery. There are a variety of reasons for not expending ordnance: weather, aircraft/system problem, target availability, etc. It is not desirable to jettison perfectly good (and expensive) ordnance, so a compromise is made to meet the desired target damage, provide for additional mission requirements (i.e., air to air) and allow for approach/landing reserves. Besides, with precision weapons, there is no need to carry excess munitions-the whole theory behind moving away from the "bomb-- truck" mentality toward "one target, one bomb." With the advent of inertial/GPS guided weapons-joint direct attack munitions (JDAM), joint standoff weapon (JSOW)-a Super Hornet can destroy multiple targets in one pass, and that would make a Phantom, Corsair, Intruder, or Tomcat pilot drool.

In 1929, the Royal Navy had the US Navy and the Japanese Navy as blue water rivals, with both navies owning comparable assets in terms of battleships, cruisers, etc. The US navy of 2006 is in a class of its own. IT has 12 supercarriers and 12 VTOL carriers. France, the nearest naval power, has 1 carrier half the size as a US nimitz class and has a displacement similar to a US VTOL carrier. You see what I'm saying.

IDontT is correct. The F-18 Super Hornet is a superior aircraft than a Tomcat. A capable fighter..not superior. But an superior attack aircraft. It is a "Jack of all trades master of none" type plane.

It is true that naval aircraft have weight limits when launching and landing. The landing weight is less than the launch weight. In two deployments with Tomcats I never saw one launch with 6 Pheonix. Usally it was just two.

Andrew sez..

It's interesting to see that the new carriers are going to be simply a neven larger version of what is around today. It somehow reminds me of the German tanks in WW II getting ever heavier and more costly to produce.

Click to expand...

I hope you really don't believe all that Andrew. More costly? Yes but more capable. Check the below link. The CVN-21 program will;

""Innovations for the CVN 21 class include an enhanced flight deck with increased sortie rates, improved weapons movement, a redesigned island, a new nuclear power plant, allowance for future technologies and reduced manning. These and many other evolutionary new designs are being developed by Newport News engineers to build the most capable aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy"".



CVN-21 project to be know as CVN-78.

I do not doubt the capabilities of the US navy. I am not saying that these aircraft won't be superior to their predecessors. And I am certain that the new carrier generation will be even more efficient. Thanks for your infos on the new carrier.

I am not so much looking at absolute numbers but try to see all this in relative terms and in the context of long term change. US naval aviation is still making improvements but the rate of progress is slowing, the trajectory is becoming flatter. Others are catching up. Today's improvements will be shown to be less fundamental and significant than previous ones by future historians.

The statement could be made about American military power, and indeed, western civilisation in general, but I think it is most striking when looking at the aspect of naval aviation in particular with the retirement of the F-14. The military reality is that in strictly aerodynamic terms, the navy will rather soon face considerable numbers of aircraft in the Asian theatry which will outpace, outrange and outperform its own ones. I find this quite remarkable as its a step towards a more level playing field.

with kind regards
Andrew

MIGleader said:

The australians should try to develop some stealth technology on it's own, maybe with russian or french asistance. Perhaps a new RAM or something. When the f-35s arrive, Australia can coat them with a better RAM. If stealth is such a high prority in Australia, they might as well.

This is why America has so few friends now.:coffee:

Click to expand...

I think that's part of the reason that the Americans are so reluctant with the entire ToT situation with UK. It probably costs astronomical amount of money to develop. Another thing is that America will probably ease up on the export controls later on. It looks like US is intent on keeping all of the stealth technology that it has. Who can blame them? Even a downgraded F-35 is going to be more stealthy than anything else out there. Also, a downgraded F-35 will probably knock down the price quite a bit, so it will be in the 50 million dollar area that it has always advertised to be.

As for F-18E, I think most of those weapons that you guys are talking about can also be applied to the Tomcat if they ever bothered with it. Anyhow, whatever plane USN chooses to use as its main naval fighter will be upgraded wil the latest radar, RAM paint and weapons, meaning it will be really good.

Andrew said:

I do not doubt the capabilities of the US navy. I am not saying that these aircraft won't be superior to their predecessors. And I am certain that the new carrier generation will be even more efficient. Thanks for your infos on the new carrier.

I am not so much looking at absolute numbers but try to see all this in relative terms and in the context of long term change. US naval aviation is still making improvements but the rate of progress is slowing, the trajectory is becoming flatter. Others are catching up. Today's improvements will be shown to be less fundamental and significant than previous ones by future historians.

The statement could be made about American military power, and indeed, western civilisation in general, but I think it is most striking when looking at the aspect of naval aviation in particular with the retirement of the F-14. The military reality is that in strictly aerodynamic terms, the navy will rather soon face considerable numbers of aircraft in the Asian theatry which will outpace, outrange and outperform its own ones. I find this quite remarkable as its a step towards a more level playing field.

with kind regards
Andrew

Click to expand...

Ahhh now I see where your coming from. The myth that the F-18F or the F-35 is aerdynamically inferior to that of the F-14 and other flanker variants. That is just a myth. The super bug has higher angle of attack than the F-14 and at some speeds much more manueverable.

Consider this for a moment, from the basic Su-27 airframe, the Russians developed the the Su-35, basically an SU-27 with superior radar and thrust vectoring. Could the USN do the same? The super bug already has one of the best radar in the world. Adding a more powerful and thrust vectoring engine is not much of a strech of the imagination. Remember, the US had them long before the Russians.

Another matter is what makes you think the the technology gap between the US and other nations is closing? No other nation spends as much on R&D than the US. The best that the competition can muster is a Flanker derivative. The Jxx and the PakFA have not yet past the conceptual stage. By the time they are ready, the F-18 and F-35's replacement should be available.

"Ahhh now I see where your coming from. The myth that the F-18F or the F-35 is aerdynamically inferior to that of the F-14 and other flanker variants. That is just a myth. The super bug has higher angle of attack than the F-14 and at some speeds much more manueverable.

Consider this for a moment, from the basic Su-27 airframe, the Russians developed the the Su-35, basically an SU-27 with superior radar and thrust vectoring. Could the USN do the same? The super bug already has one of the best radar in the world. Adding a more powerful and thrust vectoring engine is not much of a strech of the imagination. Remember, the US had them long before the Russians.

Another matter is what makes you think the the technology gap between the US and other nations is closing? No other nation spends as much on R&D than the US. The best that the competition can muster is a Flanker derivative. The Jxx and the PakFA have not yet past the conceptual stage. By the time they are ready, the F-18 and F-35's replacement should be available."

Yes, that's where I am coming from I hope my musings will not be deleted, I will go somewhat off-topic to explain my broader views:

Your argument that military innovation (Su-27 -> Su-35 = no great leap) has also slowed down on the Russian side which is supplying the Asian theatre is true and a very good one. Indeed, in this sense one could harbour doubts whether the Chinese will ever truly succeed the Americans as the world's leading power. Since, if we look at very long term history and start, say, from the Egyptians, we will find that every empire thereafter lasted less long and was in a way, more "degraded".
An indication that China's rise may not last that long may be seen in the fact that not so far out in the future, its own population will begin to age very rapidly. The one child policy and a surplus of 40 million young men will have its negative impact on societal cohesion. Drug abuse and corruption in the lare cities are serious problems already today. Thus, I am speculating that China/Asia will very quickly be faced with the same problems the West has slowly moved into over the last 100 to 150 years while at the same time battling with the problems of developmental countries. This goes especially for India. It is a senior culture and its military is growing in capabilities but there seem to be insuperable differences within the country. How do you want to lead the world out of chaos towards more order and wealth if you are yourself divided by conflict (30 official languages)?

It therefore seems too much to be overcome, especially as the ailing West is "climbing down the ladder", sending tremendous shockwaves across the system. I see the possibility of a global crisis in which all must break down for some truly new civilisation to emerge.

I think the technology gap will be closing for theoretical reasons, because every military industrial complex needs a sound base. This base is rapidly eroding in the United States if we look at it in economic terms. The country is dead broke, similar as the British Empire after the First World War. Demographics are changing in a way which is not favourable for social stability in the long run. The number of discontent, uneducated people unhappy about the rule of the white anglo-saxon protestant elite is growing. At some stage, there is going to be some sort of crunch. I am not making normative statements here, I am not for or against anyone, I am just describing what is happening. You can't keep fielding 13 mega carriers if there is civil strife in your own country and if the president's plane is threatened to be confiscated when he lands in a foreign airport because his nation cannot pay interest (I think I read that this happened to the Argentinian president in 2000).

Even though I doubt that Asia is genuinely going to take over the baton from the West (for the reasonning outlined above) I do think that it has the economic potential to challenge it militarily.

I do have to admit, though, that the Department of Defense has some very ambitious plans such as Missile Defense and directed energy weapons. If it will manage to introduce these weapons across a broad front, there may well be another American century. By the way, the story about cyborg sharks and insects sound pretty scary, too

With kind regards
Andrew

tphuang said:

I think that's part of the reason that the Americans are so reluctant with the entire ToT situation with UK. It probably costs astronomical amount of money to develop. Another thing is that America will probably ease up on the export controls later on. It looks like US is intent on keeping all of the stealth technology that it has. Who can blame them? Even a downgraded F-35 is going to be more stealthy than anything else out there. Also, a downgraded F-35 will probably knock down the price quite a bit, so it will be in the 50 million dollar area that it has always advertised to be.

As for F-18E, I think most of those weapons that you guys are talking about can also be applied to the Tomcat if they ever bothered with it. Anyhow, whatever plane USN chooses to use as its main naval fighter will be upgraded wil the latest radar, RAM paint and weapons, meaning it will be really good.

Click to expand...

You make a good point. When I first saw this, I honestly felt that the Ausies were being extremely spoiled. If we seriously did not trust them with Stealth, then we would have given them old F-117 fighters or something. Its a given with any complicated peice of high-tech machinery avaliable to export to be downgraded a bit. It's natural, its done in every export machine I have ever heard of. But an F-35 is still a hell of a step above most fighters in the region, with the exception of Su-30's and J-10's.