Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   News: Fed up with poor decision making, 15 top S. Korean Air Force chiefs have signed a petition to avoid wasting money on unproven US fighter planes. Fark: They want to scrap plans to buy cheap F-15 Silent Eagles and get in on the F-35 instead   ( finance.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, F-15, Boeing, F-35, South Korea, United States, decision makings, chiefs, petitions  
•       •       •

1845 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Sep 2013 at 10:42 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-09-12 09:30:19 AM  
It's not entirely crazy. The F-35 is flying, has mostly done SW, and an RCS that is lower than a B-2.

The F-15SE is an interesting concept but is still nothing more than a mockup and good intentions. If the were considering up modded 4th gen fighters why not look at the Super Hornet.
 
2013-09-12 09:45:28 AM  
South Korea's 15 former air force chiefs have signed a petition

Sounds like someone cleaned house in a big way, and now the rats are trying to get back in.
 
2013-09-12 09:50:37 AM  

b2theory: an RCS that is lower than a B-2


Assuming you're only carrying four missiles and no external fuel.  You add a single thing to a hard point on that aircraft and you kiss your stealth goodbye.
 
2013-09-12 10:41:50 AM  

b2theory: It's not entirely crazy. The F-35 is flying, has mostly done SW, and an RCS that is lower than a B-2.

The F-15SE is an interesting concept but is still nothing more than a mockup and good intentions. If the were considering up modded 4th gen fighters why not look at the Super Hornet.


The Superhornet is a great 4th gen fighter. But it's a farking 4th gen fighter. They're making the right decision here.
 
2013-09-12 10:44:20 AM  
To be fair, it's better.

Like, 20 better.
 
2013-09-12 10:52:41 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: b2theory: an RCS that is lower than a B-2

Assuming you're only carrying four missiles and no external fuel.  You add a single thing to a hard point on that aircraft and you kiss your stealth goodbye.


You would have the same problem with a silent eagle.  The silent package basically cuts out about half of your conformal fuel tanks for a few internal hard points. Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

The F-35 is a great fighter, but I think it's been destroyed by requirements creep.  They didn't learn their lesson trying to shove every single bell and whistle in the F-22 and only bought 4 of them.  They're going to end up doing the same with the F-35 and try to replace 400 F-16 Lawn darts with 20 F-35s.
 
2013-09-12 10:57:16 AM  
I thought they had Black Eagles.
 
2013-09-12 11:08:36 AM  

Where wolf: The F-35 is a great fighter, but I think it's been destroyed by requirements creep. They didn't learn their lesson trying to shove every single bell and whistle in the F-22 and only bought 4 of them. They're going to end up doing the same with the F-35 and try to replace 400 F-16 Lawn darts with 20 F-35s.


From what I remember from my idle research (and looking at Wiki while I write this), I think the F35 WILL be a great fighter, but my god has it been plagued with all kinds of problems. Mostly requirements creep, like you said, but also I think Lockheed Martin didn't do a stellar job of setting expectations.  The number of reconfigurations for various reasons and the exceptionally slow testing phase, which should have probably been expected, comes across as totally unacceptable (to your random schmuck on the ground, the Pentagon, and some of the subscriber countries).

Also, it's got a ton of entirely new systems, sort of like the B-17 (I think?), which means that not only do I suspect it's an entirely new way to fly a plane, but that not all the systems actually WORK right yet. I think the F-35A is more or less stable now, but the B and C are still in development/testing hell?

Oh, I see that we took delivery of the first F35-C a couple months ago.

Uh. Anyhow. This is an overly long response saying that I think you're right.
 
2013-09-12 11:08:59 AM  

vygramul: b2theory: It's not entirely crazy. The F-35 is flying, has mostly done SW, and an RCS that is lower than a B-2.

The F-15SE is an interesting concept but is still nothing more than a mockup and good intentions. If the were considering up modded 4th gen fighters why not look at the Super Hornet.

The Superhornet is a great 4th gen fighter. But it's a farking 4th gen fighter. They're making the right decision here.


Their primary enemy is North Korea. They have a grand total of 35 MiG-29s. Everything else is older and crappier, like MiG-23s and 21s.
 
2013-09-12 11:18:50 AM  

Where wolf: The F-35 is a great fighter


It hasn't seen any action yet.  My opinion is that the VTOL requirement forced too many compromises onto the airframe.
 
2013-09-12 11:20:05 AM  

Mad_Radhu: vygramul: b2theory: It's not entirely crazy. The F-35 is flying, has mostly done SW, and an RCS that is lower than a B-2.

The F-15SE is an interesting concept but is still nothing more than a mockup and good intentions. If the were considering up modded 4th gen fighters why not look at the Super Hornet.

The Superhornet is a great 4th gen fighter. But it's a farking 4th gen fighter. They're making the right decision here.

Their primary enemy is North Korea China. They have a grand total of 35 MiG-29s. Everything else is older and crappier, like MiG-23s and 21s. Who is much better armed.


FTFY - NK isn't doing squat unless big brother is there to back them up
 
2013-09-12 11:20:31 AM  

Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.


I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.
 
2013-09-12 11:20:31 AM  

Mad_Radhu: vygramul: b2theory: It's not entirely crazy. The F-35 is flying, has mostly done SW, and an RCS that is lower than a B-2.

The F-15SE is an interesting concept but is still nothing more than a mockup and good intentions. If the were considering up modded 4th gen fighters why not look at the Super Hornet.

The Superhornet is a great 4th gen fighter. But it's a farking 4th gen fighter. They're making the right decision here.

Their primary enemy is North Korea. They have a grand total of 35 MiG-29s. Everything else is older and crappier, like MiG-23s and 21s.


I'm not sure that is a particularly convincing argument, given that the last war didn't involve just NK, nor feature a massive technological advantage in the air.
 
2013-09-12 11:21:09 AM  

costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.


Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.
 
2013-09-12 11:21:26 AM  

Aidan: Where wolf: The F-35 is a great fighter, but I think it's been destroyed by requirements creep. They didn't learn their lesson trying to shove every single bell and whistle in the F-22 and only bought 4 of them. They're going to end up doing the same with the F-35 and try to replace 400 F-16 Lawn darts with 20 F-35s.

From what I remember from my idle research (and looking at Wiki while I write this), I think the F35 WILL be a great fighter, but my god has it been plagued with all kinds of problems. Mostly requirements creep, like you said, but also I think Lockheed Martin didn't do a stellar job of setting expectations.  The number of reconfigurations for various reasons and the exceptionally slow testing phase, which should have probably been expected, comes across as totally unacceptable (to your random schmuck on the ground, the Pentagon, and some of the subscriber countries).

Also, it's got a ton of entirely new systems, sort of like the B-17 (I think?), which means that not only do I suspect it's an entirely new way to fly a plane, but that not all the systems actually WORK right yet. I think the F-35A is more or less stable now, but the B and C are still in development/testing hell?

Oh, I see that we took delivery of the first F35-C a couple months ago.

Uh. Anyhow. This is an overly long response saying that I think you're right.


Yeah, creep has killed every program since the F-15E.  The F-16 is an amazing point defense fighter, but we've tried to make it do everything else block after block after block.  Now, you can take a Lawn Dart on a bombing run, but it'll have to take off, refuel, get to target, refuel, drop bombs, refuel, and fly home.  The F-35 should have Air-to-ground capability to drop two things: SDBs and HARM.  Once you've established air superiority and eliminated air defenses, the F-15Es and the A-10s can do their job (and do it better than an F-35 could).

The Air Force wants to do everything in one package and neither the Navy nor the Army has tried to explain to them why you don't just buy carriers or tanks.
 
2013-09-12 11:31:53 AM  

vygramul: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.


The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat.
 
2013-09-12 11:33:26 AM  

costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.


I had a copy of the original brief at one point, but I don't think I took it with me when I left the company. I think they could at least mount agm-88 harms, and maybe whatever they call the sdb package
 
2013-09-12 11:33:52 AM  

oldweasel: Mad_Radhu: vygramul: b2theory: It's not entirely crazy. The F-35 is flying, has mostly done SW, and an RCS that is lower than a B-2.

The F-15SE is an interesting concept but is still nothing more than a mockup and good intentions. If the were considering up modded 4th gen fighters why not look at the Super Hornet.

The Superhornet is a great 4th gen fighter. But it's a farking 4th gen fighter. They're making the right decision here.

Their primary enemy is North Korea China. They have a grand total of 35 MiG-29s. Everything else is older and crappier, like MiG-23s and 21s. Who is much better armed.

FTFY - NK isn't doing squat unless big brother is there to back them up


Samsung does way too much business with Chinese factories for them to get into a pissing match over Best Korea. The business interests that pull the strings in China now wouldn't allow a shooting war happen between China and a major customer.
 
2013-09-12 11:34:23 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.

The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat.


And it never will?
 
2013-09-12 11:35:40 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Samsung does way too much business with Chinese factories for them to get into a pissing match over Best Korea. The business interests that pull the strings in China now wouldn't allow a shooting war happen between China and a major customer.


Taiwan is going the same way.  The Chinese can't bomb anything without hitting something that they own at least a part of.
 
2013-09-12 11:35:54 AM  

Mad_Radhu: Samsung does way too much business with Chinese factories for them to get into a pissing match over Best Korea. The business interests that pull the strings in China now wouldn't allow a shooting war happen between China and a major customer.


Germany's #1 Trading Partner: Britain
Germany's #2 Trading Partner: France
Germany's #1 Investment: Russia
Year: 1912

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity to trump economic interests. After all, we'll all be home by Christmas and trade and investments won't be seriously affected.
 
2013-09-12 11:45:28 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Where wolf: The F-35 is a great fighter

It hasn't seen any action yet.  My opinion is that the VTOL requirement forced too many compromises onto the airframe.


Compromises on the VTOL version, which obliterates all previous VTOL's in performance.
The biggest problem with the F-35 is that extended development of each variant has turned the "one jet for all" program into many individualized platforms. It probably would have been cheaper to run four programs, any three of which wouldn't need stealth, excessive engine reliability, or pricy avionics.

Altogether its still an impressive package, and more advanced than anything you'll find outside of the US military. For an end customer this is the most sensible of the generation 5's you can buy.
 
2013-09-12 11:48:49 AM  
Who, exactly, are we in an arms race with?
 
2013-09-12 12:00:31 PM  

way south: more advanced than anything you'll find outside of the US military


It's a lot of money for something that's only stealthy from the front using internal fuel and limited to 4 missiles.  In every other role, the F-15 and F-18 have more range, versatility, payload, and flight envelope, if I am not mistaken.  And when it's leaving the scene it's as vulnerable to SAMs as any other jet.

But I could be wrong.
 
2013-09-12 12:01:39 PM  

ComicBookGuy: Who, exactly, are we in an arms race with?


As Eisenhower said, modern war makes it impossible to improvise a defense, and so we're compelled to make a vast arms industry. You can't develop and deploy a 5th gen fighter in a few months. It takes a decade or more. So, really, by the time there's a race, it's really too late.
 
2013-09-12 12:03:01 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: way south: more advanced than anything you'll find outside of the US military

It's a lot of money for something that's only stealthy from the front using internal fuel and limited to 4 missiles.  In every other role, the F-15 and F-18 have more range, versatility, payload, and flight envelope, if I am not mistaken.  And when it's leaving the scene it's as vulnerable to SAMs as any other jet.

But I could be wrong.


Well, it's certainly what DoD thinks everyone else should believe.
 
2013-09-12 12:28:46 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: way south: more advanced than anything you'll find outside of the US military

It's a lot of money for something that's only stealthy from the front using internal fuel and limited to 4 missiles.  In every other role, the F-15 and F-18 have more range, versatility, payload, and flight envelope, if I am not mistaken.  And when it's leaving the scene it's as vulnerable to SAMs as any other jet.

But I could be wrong.


Consider the main purpose of stealth: Door kicking.
Stealth bombers are used to take out air defenses. The next wave goes in to deal with any straggling fighters and mobile defense units. You then send in bomb trucks to wreak havoc and level their infrastructure.The final wave is about troop support and taking out armor and fortifications with close air support.The aftermath is all drone territory for finding insurgents.

Say we usefour kinds of aircraft in manned roles, three of those jets could be made cheaply with no fancy avionics or stealth kit.  Stealth planes don't need big payloads and, after they're done, you don't need stealth.

I assume their reasoning was that ifYou're going to hemorrhage all your money on developing one jet, why not make a jet everyone can use?
It all costs the sameby the time you build a production line. This way everyone gets features they can benefit from and we can run the program in legacy mode for the next century.

/The theory wasn't bad.
/The execution was all kinds of farked...
 
2013-09-12 12:32:01 PM  
"former"
 
2013-09-12 12:35:12 PM  
When your country is next door to craziest motherfarking dictator on the planet, buy the most capable and lethal machine available and FARK the damn price.  You can't spend the money you saved if Best Koreans are herding you and your family into a re-education camp.

Whether the F-35 or the F-15 meets the description of 'most capable and lethal' is a different issue, about which opinions seem to vary.  I'm sure Fark Defense Analysts will resolve the issue right after they have cleared up the 'Dreadnoughts vs. U-boats' question.
 
2013-09-12 12:36:07 PM  
Asians mistaking the new shiny with being better and awesome. Really hitting that whole "not news" thing pretty well between the eyes.
 
2013-09-12 12:38:59 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.

The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat.


Training sessions with India have pretty well proven that it can't hold up to the Su-30.  The F-15 was a great jet, but it's becoming obsolete.  It's time to move on.
 
2013-09-12 12:45:03 PM  
This is crazy, the US will just be hungry for new sales in 10 min.
 
2013-09-12 01:03:50 PM  

costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.


Personally I wish we'd (Canada) go for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen. It has everything except stealth, blows everyone away on price (both upfront and running cost) and was built in a country that knows the kind of climate we face.

But I'm OK with F35's if we go that route. Our CF-18 airframes are getting old so we gotta do something.
 
2013-09-12 01:17:02 PM  

vygramul: Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.


The RCAF hasn't been a 'first day of the war' force in my lifetime. Based on the level of spending that the Canadian public finds tolerable, that's never going to change. We buy fighters with the nominal role of border patrol interceptors, but the only real work we've used the CF-18s for has been playing bomb-truck in environments where air superiority was already established. Strike Eagles would have been a far better fit for the role we put the Hornets in, and while it's not optimal, if the price is right the Silent Eagle makes sense too. There are decent choices in Europe that might work well; Gripen, Eurofighter, Rafale, but I'm sure we'll buy American (in all likelihood the F-35) eventually. I just feel like when it comes to procurement, we shouldn't totally ignore the operational role we've had in NATO missions for 25 years.
 
2013-09-12 01:18:57 PM  

Fano: I thought they had Black Eagles.


Korea's finest.
 
2013-09-12 01:23:59 PM  

vygramul: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.


I'm willing to lose quite a lot of Canadian pilots.
 
2013-09-12 01:24:02 PM  

Farking Canuck: Personally I wish we'd (Canada) go for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen. It has everything except stealth, blows everyone away on price (both upfront and running cost) and was built in a country that knows the kind of climate we face.


The pontoons would kill the stealth anyway.
 
2013-09-12 01:26:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: b2theory: an RCS that is lower than a B-2

Assuming you're only carrying four missiles and no external fuel.  You add a single thing to a hard point on that aircraft and you kiss your stealth goodbye.


In fairness, that's also true of the B-2.  And South Korean fighters would hardly need external fuel---their mission is to defend against a North Korean invasion (primarily), and SK is a small country---you don't need much range.  As for the external weapons, again, they might not be needed at all---NK's air force is outdated and doesn't have too many flyable aircraft, so even with only 4 missiles apiece, a couple F-35 squadrons could easily defend SK from NK aircraft.  And once they've destroyed the NK air force, they'd be employed against NK troops, and so stealth wouldn't be nearly as important (unless they're doing a SEAD mission).

Anyway, your concerns about the F-35 are very valid to the USAF.  We need longer range, more weapons, etc. because we're a bigger country and we do more missions in hostile airspace (as opposed to defending the homeland).  But in terms of what the ROKAF needs to accomplish, the F-35's weaknesses really aren't very relevant.
 
2013-09-12 01:29:53 PM  

flak attack: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.

The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat.

Training sessions with India have pretty well proven that it can't hold up to the Su-30.  The F-15 was a great jet, but it's becoming obsolete.  It's time to move on.


Don't read too much into that.
 
2013-09-12 01:35:58 PM  

way south: Marcus Aurelius: way south: more advanced than anything you'll find outside of the US military

It's a lot of money for something that's only stealthy from the front using internal fuel and limited to 4 missiles.  In every other role, the F-15 and F-18 have more range, versatility, payload, and flight envelope, if I am not mistaken.  And when it's leaving the scene it's as vulnerable to SAMs as any other jet.

But I could be wrong.

Consider the main purpose of stealth: Door kicking.
Stealth bombers are used to take out air defenses. The next wave goes in to deal with any straggling fighters and mobile defense units. You then send in bomb trucks to wreak havoc and level their infrastructure.The final wave is about troop support and taking out armor and fortifications with close air support.The aftermath is all drone territory for finding insurgents.

Say we usefour kinds of aircraft in manned roles, three of those jets could be made cheaply with no fancy avionics or stealth kit.  Stealth planes don't need big payloads and, after they're done, you don't need stealth.

I assume their reasoning was that ifYou're going to hemorrhage all your money on developing one jet, why not make a jet everyone can use?
It all costs the sameby the time you build a production line. This way everyone gets features they can benefit from and we can run the program in legacy mode for the next century.

/The theory wasn't bad.
/The execution was all kinds of farked...


This

After you kick the door down the F-35 can trade stealth for external pylons and carry an equivalent load to the other fighters mentioned.
 
2013-09-12 01:54:17 PM  

Farking Canuck: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Personally I wish we'd (Canada) go for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen. It has everything except stealth, blows everyone away on price (both upfront and running cost) and was built in a country that knows the kind of climate we face.

But I'm OK with F35's if we go that route. Our CF-18 airframes are getting old so we gotta do something.


The Gripen, while a great fighter, isn't even in the same class. There is way more to the F-35 than stealth.
 
2013-09-12 01:58:31 PM  

way south: The biggest problem with the F-35 is that extended development of each variant has turned the "one jet for all" program into many individualized platforms. It probably would have been cheaper to run four programs, any three of which wouldn't need stealth, excessive engine reliability, or pricy avionics.


Try getting Congress to believe that.

That's the whole problem with most of these high-profile programs: they are designed not with the best engineering or economic interests in mind, but with the interests of convincing not-particularly-intelligent people that it's a good idea using fifth-grade-level logic.

Also see "reusable launch vehichles".
 
2013-09-12 02:12:29 PM  

b2theory: The Gripen, while a great fighter, isn't even in the same class. There is way more to the F-35 than stealth.


I am factoring in cost much higher than you are. The difference in up front and in running costs between the two is staggering.

Apparently the point is moot as SAAB has pulled out of the current bidding process ... something about "conditions were not yet ripe for us". My guess it will boil down to the F-35 if we want to go 5th or the Super Hornet if we want to go 4th (we have a lot of experience with the Hornets).
 
2013-09-12 02:19:02 PM  

flak attack: Marcus Aurelius: vygramul: costermonger: Where wolf: Boeing was basically pitching the silent eagle as a "go in, take out defenses, then leave and go get a real load-out for dogfighting or Air-to-Ground action. A Dual-dual role Strike Eagle, if you will.

I can't find any literature indicating those conformal weapons bays can carry air-to-ground weaponry. At least the F-35 can haul a couple JDAMs without negating it's stealth.

I like the F-15SE for countries like Canada though. It makes a lot of sense for a second-tier western military.

Depends on how many pilots you're content with losing.

The F-15 has never been shot down in air-to-air combat.

Training sessions with India have pretty well proven that it can't hold up to the Su-30.  The F-15 was a great jet, but it's becoming obsolete.  It's time to move on.


So we should buy Su-30's then?
 
2013-09-12 02:43:38 PM  
Farking Canuck:
Personally I wish we'd (Canada) go for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen. It has everything except stealth, blows everyone away on price (both upfront and running cost) and was built in a country that knows the kind of climate we face.

Problem is that a fighter that has 'everything except stealth' is as good as a car that has 'everything except wheels' when fighting against stealth technology.  Everyone is comfortable in the idea that the Eurofighter could match or beat a F22 in a high energy dogfight.  But that doesn't mean squat.  The F22 would bat the Eurofighter from the sky before the Eurofighter could engage it.  And if the F22 felt that the Eurofighter was going to get an advantage it could disengage before it could become a threat.

Truth is that if the F22 and the Eurofighter (or a comparable non-stealth high-agility fighter) ever were to tangle it would always be on the terms of the F22.  The Eurofighter could never force the F22 to fight on its own terms, or for that matter force an engagement at all.  That's an incalculable advantage.
 
2013-09-12 02:46:11 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Marcus Aurelius: b2theory: an RCS that is lower than a B-2

Assuming you're only carrying four missiles and no external fuel.  You add a single thing to a hard point on that aircraft and you kiss your stealth goodbye.

...And South Korean fighters would hardly need external fuel---their mission is to defend against a North Korean invasion (primarily), and SK is a small country---you don't need much range...Anyway, your concerns about the F-35 are very valid to the USAF.


Why can people not read the published specs on this aircraft before posting about it?

F-35 Internal Fuel Capacity:   18,480 lb
F-16 Internal Fuel Capacity:  1072 US Gallons x 6.7lb/gal = 7180 lbs (barely more than 1/3 of F-35)
F-15 Internal Fuel Capacity:   13455 lb (barely more than 2/3 of F-35)

The F-35's engine, the F135 by PW, produces 43000 lbf without ABs, while the F-15's F100s do  17,800 lbf each, for combined 35600 lbf.  While the F135 engines use (0.866 - 0.76) / 0.76 = 16.6% more fuel by specific fuel consumption (sfc), there's only one of them on the F-35, instead of the two F100 engines on the F-15, making the F-35 have 21% more thrust while burning less fuel.  The F-16's single F110 engine produces 32000 lbf. at .745 sfc, which is good, but did not meet the performance needs of the F-35 thus necessitating the creation of the F135 engine.

Please continue explaining the range issues the F-35 is going to have, though, while maintaining an RCS less than a B2.
 
2013-09-12 02:51:31 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So we should buy Su-30's then?


No. I'd rather be in the '15.
 
2013-09-12 02:52:43 PM  

Kaeishiwaza: Farking Canuck:
Personally I wish we'd (Canada) go for the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen. It has everything except stealth, blows everyone away on price (both upfront and running cost) and was built in a country that knows the kind of climate we face.

Problem is that a fighter that has 'everything except stealth' is as good as a car that has 'everything except wheels' when fighting against stealth technology.  Everyone is comfortable in the idea that the Eurofighter could match or beat a F22 in a high energy dogfight.  But that doesn't mean squat.  The F22 would bat the Eurofighter from the sky before the Eurofighter could engage it.  And if the F22 felt that the Eurofighter was going to get an advantage it could disengage before it could become a threat.

Truth is that if the F22 and the Eurofighter (or a comparable non-stealth high-agility fighter) ever were to tangle it would always be on the terms of the F22.  The Eurofighter could never force the F22 to fight on its own terms, or for that matter force an engagement at all.  That's an incalculable advantage.


As an F-15 driver said, "The first time you know an F-22 has entered the range is when control calls to tell you you're dead. It turns mediocre pilots into rock stars."
 
2013-09-12 02:55:42 PM  

Minarets: Fano: I thought they had Black Eagles.

Korea's finest.


oh yeah? we have SPARKLY eagles - USA! USA! USA!

i259.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-12 03:03:15 PM  

Seraphym: HMS_Blinkin: Marcus Aurelius: b2theory: an RCS that is lower than a B-2

Assuming you're only carrying four missiles and no external fuel.  You add a single thing to a hard point on that aircraft and you kiss your stealth goodbye.

...And South Korean fighters would hardly need external fuel---their mission is to defend against a North Korean invasion (primarily), and SK is a small country---you don't need much range...Anyway, your concerns about the F-35 are very valid to the USAF.

Why can people not read the published specs on this aircraft before posting about it?

F-35 Internal Fuel Capacity:   18,480 lb
F-16 Internal Fuel Capacity:  1072 US Gallons x 6.7lb/gal = 7180 lbs (barely more than 1/3 of F-35)
F-15 Internal Fuel Capacity:   13455 lb (barely more than 2/3 of F-35)

The F-35's engine, the F135 by PW, produces 43000 lbf without ABs, while the F-15's F100s do  17,800 lbf each, for combined 35600 lbf.  While the F135 engines use (0.866 - 0.76) / 0.76 = 16.6% more fuel by specific fuel consumption (sfc), there's only one of them on the F-35, instead of the two F100 engines on the F-15, making the F-35 have 21% more thrust while burning less fuel.  The F-16's single F110 engine produces 32000 lbf. at .745 sfc, which is good, but did not meet the performance needs of the F-35 thus necessitating the creation of the F135 engine.

Please continue explaining the range issues the F-35 is going to have, though, while maintaining an RCS less than a B2.


Ach, copied wrong numbers, revision:  F135 engine does 43000 lbf with AB, 28000 dry thrust, F110 is 17,000-ish (depends on variant).  Meaning the performance gap before ABs is actually larger than I posted above (more consistent with what I remember from briefs too).

Also, the F-35C, the Navy's variant, carries another 1000+ lbs of internal fuel load as well.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report