F-35... destined for greatness?

Dishwasher

Commodore
The dutch bought the JSF instead of the eurofighter typhoon.
Also there is not going to be 1 JSF but 3 models I believe with very different roles.

A VTOL Marine version for aircraft carriers
A long Range version
and a air superiority version witch will replace F16's in allied arsenals.
 

TankGunner

Rear Admiral
Oh, I don't doubt you a bit, seeing how that's your profession. But the question at that point becomes more of, "Whose frontal armor would it be chewing up? I'm doubting a tank from 20-30 years past whose armor hasn't been updated, and whose country is running the thing that might not have had the money to update, has much of a chance vice the chance that the updated armor would have that's got to be on an M-1.

Yeah, a T-55 type tank, or any older model will die quite easily to the Thunderbolt's cannon, but many nations have updated after watching the US Army and Air Force rip the Iraqi army to shreds in '91. But it has been 15 years since then. Many new tanks have significant frontal glacis armor now, like China's new Type 85-II tank.

The dutch bought the JSF instead of the eurofighter typhoon.
Also there is not going to be 1 JSF but 3 models I believe with very different roles.

A VTOL Marine version for aircraft carriers
A long Range version
and a air superiority version witch will replace F16's in allied arsenals.

I haven't seen anything about a "long range version" but the VTOL was a separate variant. I don't think that the F-35 is for air superiority, it was designed for air to ground strikes. Where the EuroFighter was designed as air superiority with air to ground as an 'add-on' capability later. The Dutch probably already have a air superiority fighter, and wanted a strike capability.
 

Ijuin

Admiral
Tigerhawk said:
I think that was more of a comparitive thing. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it was said that we WOULD go to war with China, just more of a WhatIf kind of thing.

Quite. My meaning was that besides China (and Russia, Israel, and Britain, who are even LESS likely to go to war with the USA than China), no other nation can even touch the USA in air-to-air capability. Thus, since the USA's most likely near-future enemies are so relatively lagging in air-to-air power, emphasis is being shifted to air-to-ground capability.
 

Foxtrot

Spaceman
Ijuin said:
The only nation in the world that has air-to-air capability comparable to the United States and that is at all likely to go to war with the USA within the next 20 years is China, so the main threat to American fighters would be anti-air missiles (air or ground launched), not WWII/Korea style dogfights with machine guns and unguided rockets.
1st off i think its unlikely that china would wage war with the US when there is so much american wealth pouring into the country. 2nd the chineese airforce in my opinion sucks ! apart from the imitation MIGS with the "Made in China" logo i havnt heard anything more about their airforce.
the main competetor for the USAF would be the IAF, Indian air force. i know the EU is more powerfull and all that but as a country alone the IAF has one of the largest fleets on the planet and this is composed of a wide variety of fighters from British Jaguars, French Mirages and Russian MIGs ( 21, 25 & 29 ) and the latest and badest Sukhoi 31 ( Su 30-MKI ) which as a multi-role fighter is beter that anything the USAF can muster at present.
not that thats something for the USAF to worry abt, the IAF's primary goal is to gaurd India from Pakistani and Chinese incursions.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Foxtrot said:
1st off i think its unlikely that china would wage war with the US when there is so much american wealth pouring into the country. 2nd the chineese airforce in my opinion sucks ! apart from the imitation MIGS with the "Made in China" logo i havnt heard anything more about their airforce.
the main competetor for the USAF would be the IAF, Indian air force. i know the EU is more powerfull and all that but as a country alone the IAF has one of the largest fleets on the planet and this is composed of a wide variety of fighters from British Jaguars, French Mirages and Russian MIGs ( 21, 25 & 29 ) and the latest and badest Sukhoi 31 ( Su 30-MKI ) which as a multi-role fighter is beter that anything the USAF can muster at present.
not that thats something for the USAF to worry abt, the IAF's primary goal is to gaurd India from Pakistani and Chinese incursions.

Well, theoretically, USA is not likely to go to war with anyone except for possibly Iran and North Korea and even those two are a little iffy. The only way USA goes to war against China would be if somehow China decides to annex Taiwan by force and we honor our commitments to Taiwan. Seems unlikely to me. But then again at one point in history there were a bunch of heads of states debating whether England and France would actually go to war with Germany...my point being, wars can take place even if they are considered unlikely. With that in mind, USA does however approach it's military preparations with the most likely scenarios in mind and the most likely scenarios don't involve a big ass war with China or Russia. They are more of the smaller third world country, anti-terrorist wars against nations like Iran and North Korea. Against which, USA doesn't really need a great deal of air to air combat vehicles but more of the air to ground variants. The F-35 looks like it would be quite suitable for that role.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Maj.Striker said:
Well, theoretically, USA is not likely to go to war with anyone except for possibly Iran and North Korea and even those two are a little iffy.
Hehe, the US is far less likely to go to war against Iran than it is against China (and that in itself is extremely unlikely - China and the US are both content with the status quo in regards to Taiwan, and both are taking steps to keep Taiwan from doing anything to destabilise the situation), at least in the foreseeable future.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
Quarto said:
Hehe, the US is far less likely to go to war against Iran than it is against China (and that in itself is extremely unlikely - China and the US are both content with the status quo in regards to Taiwan, and both are taking steps to keep Taiwan from doing anything to destabilise the situation), at least in the foreseeable future.

Well, this may be just a disagreement of opinion but I really think USA has a greater chance of being involved in a war with either Iran or North Korea than China but even so I agree both scenarios are highly unlikely.
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
Maj.Striker said:
Well, this may be just a disagreement of opinion but I really think USA has a greater chance of being involved in a war with either Iran or North Korea than China but even so I agree both scenarios are highly unlikely.

The iffy thing about that sentiment, though, is that, if we ever do go to war with North Korea, the chances that China will get back into the fray and suppory North Korea as they did in the '50s might have a repeat performance.

Two birds, one shotgun shell kind of thing....only it's take a lot more than one shotgun shell for these kinds of birds.
 

TankGunner

Rear Admiral
the main competetor for the USAF would be the IAF, Indian air force. i know the EU is more powerfull and all that but as a country alone the IAF has one of the largest fleets on the planet and this is composed of a wide variety of fighters from British Jaguars, French Mirages and Russian MIGs ( 21, 25 & 29 ) and the latest and badest Sukhoi 31 ( Su 30-MKI ) which as a multi-role fighter is beter that anything the USAF can muster at present.

The problem with this is that the Indian's fleet of Jaguars (which is a ground attack aircraft) Mirages, and MIGs is that ALL of these fighters are over 25 years old, and completely outclassed by any US fighter in service. The only exception is the SU-31 series which they (like China) don't have alot of. What justification do you have for saying the SU-31 is better than anything the USAF has? The F-15C has a longer range, more powerful radar, better missiles, more missiles, and has higher manuevorability. And the F-22 is even better, Stealth, thrust-vectoring, even higher missile capacity.

All of the nations previously discussed (Iran, North Korea, China and India) would eventually lose in a non-nuclear war with the US. The US alone has the ability to project power with it's carrier battle groups. We can strike their homelands, while they can't hit the US.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
TankGunner said:
All of the nations previously discussed (Iran, North Korea, China and India) would eventually lose in a non-nuclear war with the US. The US alone has the ability to project power with it's carrier battle groups. We can strike their homelands, while they can't hit the US.

That's assuming North Korea doesn't launch their new missile... :)
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
[18:18] <LOAF> It's right, but the trick is that it has almost no payload.
[18:19] <MajStriker> How much payload does it have?
[18:20] <LOAF> It depends on the target.
[18:20] <LOAF> It could deliver a nuke to Japan, but not to the US
 

Zebum

Spaceman
Well yes Vtol is an innovation, except that Bitain invented that about 30 years ago!!!
The JSF is an excellent fighter which has 3 versions each designed to perform a certain role.
The USAF has the F-22 as an air superiortity fighter and as such does not need the JSF to do the same. It would be a waste of money.
The RAF has Typhoon which as well as being an extremely agile fighter, can also carrry out an extremely effective air to ground role. The JCA (as the JSF is known in the UK) is the replacement for the harrier and will only function in that close combat role for the RAF. However it will replace the sea Harrier for the Royal Navy and so be a complete multi purpose aircraft.
This is not to say that Britain does it the best way, just that it can only do what it can afford. The RAF has to have a sing;e aircraft that can perform all roles whereas the USAF can afford to have two (or more) aircraft that can perform these tasks.

Sorry if this doesn't make much sense but its 4 in the morning in the UK and i've had too much to drink!!!
 

TankGunner

Rear Admiral
That's assuming North Korea doesn't launch their new missile...

Come on, give me a break! That thing doesn't have the capability to lift a gopher, let alone a nuclear warhead. All that missile (I would refer to it's proper name, but I can't remember it) All it can do is fly a really long way. The N. Koreans still need to refine it and improve it to carry a warhead of any type.

And I think that missile interceptors in Alaska would take it down, the USAF recently switched the interceptors from test to operational mode.

[18:19] <MajStriker> How much payload does it have?
[18:20] <LOAF> It depends on the target.
[18:20] <LOAF> It could deliver a nuke to Japan, but not to the US

The problem is that IF, and that is a BIG IF, North Korea has a nuclear weapon (the haven't done any tests or underground bursts like India and Pakistan) It would be too big at this level of development to put on top of a missile. Again, like the missile itself, the N. Koreans need to refine and improve it to miniturize it to fit on a missile.
 

Ijuin

Admiral
North Korea may have nukes, and they may have an ICBM, but they are a decade away from being able to mate the two since the nukes that they have would be the first-generation kind that mass four or more tons.

As for VTOL, it was my impression that the F-35 was supposed to be more efficient than the Harrier (could lift off with more weight while being more fuel efficient).
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Maj.Striker said:
Well, this may be just a disagreement of opinion but I really think USA has a greater chance of being involved in a war with either Iran or North Korea than China but even so I agree both scenarios are highly unlikely.
The thing is, a war with China would be a much easier and simpler affair than a war with Iran. It would be comparable to the Falklands War - a limited engagement where the two sides fight only in a restricted theatre of war (Taiwan) using conventional weapons, and leaving the mainland out of it. Nobody would be talking about invading the US or China, and nobody would be thinking about using nuclear weapons in the event of defeat. So, while politically unlikely, such a war is militarily feasible and winnable for both sides.

Iran is a different story. There's no possible middle-ground scenarios - you can't very well strike Iran's nuclear reactor without expecting reprisals in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's all or nothing. A war with Iran would essentially mean a full-scale invasion and occupation, and that's entirely out of America's reach. The US doesn't currently have enough forces... it does not even have the capability to raise an army big enough to invade Iran. They'd have to bring back the draft and spend a year or two preparing for war. We're talking about invasion on a country almost five times the size of Germany (and you know how many millions of troops that required), a country that has roughly 30 million people fit for military service, and - most important of all - a government that has the full and total support of its citizens (even those politically opposed to the government would support it in war). The US would simply have no chance of winning the war against Iran, and they have no intention of getting into such a war - as you can tell from the fact that the US government is talking about reducing their already insignificant presence in Iraq, rather than increasing it in preparation for another conflict.

(don't get me wrong - technologically, the US is hugely superior to Iran. But quality isn't everything - quantity also counts, especially when you're trying to capture and occupy a mountainous area of that size)
 

Foxtrot

Spaceman
If you want effective air-ground capabilities i have seen the MIG 21's and 25's do the job extremely well. in 1999 during the Kargil incursion in norther Kashimr pakistani forces had taken over several of our bunkers on top of the mountain ranges in the Kargil and Batalic sectors. the best way to prepare for a ground invasion to re-occupy the areas was to bomb them using your usuall laser guided missiles and other armament. the entire operation saw the loss of 2 fighters only ( 1 due to engine faliure, the 2nd was shot down ) and keep in mind these were the highest altitude bombing runs ever conducted.
my point is the research and development of a fighter specialising in only ground attacks is a waste as many existing good fighters can cope with those sorts of missions. their aim should be to concenterate on multi-role capabilities and make it an all-rounder like the good old F-18s
 

TankGunner

Rear Admiral
my point is the research and development of a fighter specialising in only ground attacks is a waste as many existing good fighters can cope with those sorts of missions. their aim should be to concenterate on multi-role capabilities and make it an all-rounder like the good old F-18s

Yeah, any plane can be converted into a 'bomb truck', but unless they have the software and hardware to accurately release the bombs, they're no better than an old B-17. The US Navy did that with the F-14D, but the critical part is, you still need an attack aircraft to designate the target with the laser.

I doubt that a MIG-25 would be any good at this, it has almost no maneuverability, and could only carry four missiles. That thing was designed to shoot down US bombers, and that was it. No low-level bombing runs or tangling with fighters, just go really fast (Mach 3) and fly high and shoot down bombers.
 

Maj.Striker

Swabbie
Banned
TankGunner said:
Come on, give me a break! That thing doesn't have the capability to lift a gopher, let alone a nuclear warhead. All that missile (I would refer to it's proper name, but I can't remember it) All it can do is fly a really long way. The N. Koreans still need to refine it and improve it to carry a warhead of any type.

Apparently you missed my sarcasm. I agree, it's highly unlikely that the North Korean missile, with payload or otherwise, would reach American soil.


The problem is that IF, and that is a BIG IF, North Korea has a nuclear weapon (the haven't done any tests or underground bursts like India and Pakistan) It would be too big at this level of development to put on top of a missile. Again, like the missile itself, the N. Koreans need to refine and improve it to miniturize it to fit on a missile.

I don't know about that, but didn't the North Koreans themselves say they had nukes? (not talking about the reactor).

The thing is, a war with China would be a much easier and simpler affair than a war with Iran. It would be comparable to the Falklands War - a limited engagement where the two sides fight only in a restricted theatre of war (Taiwan) using conventional weapons, and leaving the mainland out of it. Nobody would be talking about invading the US or China, and nobody would be thinking about using nuclear weapons in the event of defeat. So, while politically unlikely, such a war is militarily feasible and winnable for both sides.

Iran is a different story. There's no possible middle-ground scenarios - you can't very well strike Iran's nuclear reactor without expecting reprisals in both Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's all or nothing. A war with Iran would essentially mean a full-scale invasion and occupation, and that's entirely out of America's reach. The US doesn't currently have enough forces... it does not even have the capability to raise an army big enough to invade Iran. They'd have to bring back the draft and spend a year or two preparing for war. We're talking about invasion on a country almost five times the size of Germany (and you know how many millions of troops that required), a country that has roughly 30 million people fit for military service, and - most important of all - a government that has the full and total support of its citizens (even those politically opposed to the government would support it in war). The US would simply have no chance of winning the war against Iran, and they have no intention of getting into such a war - as you can tell from the fact that the US government is talking about reducing their already insignificant presence in Iraq, rather than increasing it in preparation for another conflict.

(don't get me wrong - technologically, the US is hugely superior to Iran. But quality isn't everything - quantity also counts, especially when you're trying to capture and occupy a mountainous area of that size)

Well I've definitely not studied the statistics on Iran so I will bow to your knowledge there but I do know that in 1991 many of the same arguments were raised about Iraq. At the time I believe Iraq had one of the most advanced and sizeable armies in the middle east. People said it would make Vietnam look like child's play, etc. I agree with your arguments though, there's no way America could realistically invade Iran without instituting a draft to beef up its ranks and even so it would be a messy affair. The chances of a full blown war are iffy at best.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I don't know about that, but didn't the North Koreans themselves say they had nukes? (not talking about the reactor).

Yes, but there's absolutely no evidence to support their claim. They've never detonated anything.
 
Top