Grey Ghost 531 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 This assumes Vermont's only source of jobs is the Guard, or that a louder jet won't negatively impact net jobs. The Air Guard is one of the biggest single employers in the Burlington area. I think the only things bigger are state government, the hospital and IBM. And IBM just canned about 15-20% of their workers. As I understand the noise issue here, the F-35 won't be any louder than an F-16 due to the F-35 not needing AB to launch and climb out whereas the F-16s almost always use it. An F-35 in AB is quite a bit louder than an F-16 in AB and that's what the anti-F-35 crowd is using as the source for their numbers. An F-35 in mil is no louder than an F-16 in AB and that's what the antis refuse to acknowledge. What percentage of take-offs and landings at the airport does the Guard make up? Remember it's an international airport. According to the FAA, military traffic was only 10% of the airport's business and less than a quarter of it even if you leave out light planes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) The F-5 series of aircraft followed the Soviet thinking of the time...put up mass quantities of lesser capable aircraft, but win with superior numbers. One piranha alone won't do much, but when you get a big group of them, even the biggest and strongest animal will eventually succumb to mass attack. From a technology standpoint, I think the 22/35 are unbelievable. But I still think we have to be careful of having a very small number of hi-tech aircraft. As Aggressor 01 posted, the F-5 can get a 22 kill in the right circumstances. Imagine if you're a 22 pilot and there are 25 "F-5's" coming at you. How much does it cost us to train an F-5 pilot vs the cost of training an F-22 pilot. Do you want to be the guy that sends those 25 F-5 pilots out against the F-22s knowing that you're going to 'expend' a bunch of them on the off chance of a 'golden BB' hit on the Raptor? Real fight, not ACMI training. How would the tactics of the aggressors have to change if they were up against a live AIM-120 vs the risk of a little buzzer going off when they're 'killed' I bet a lot of those F-22 'kills' wouldn't have happened if the F-5s were really risking anything. Edited July 17, 2013 by Grey Ghost 531 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Don't buy tha PAK-FA yet... "Honeymoon phase" is over Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 How much does it cost us to train an F-5 pilot vs the cost of training an F-22 pilot. Do you want to be the guy that sends those 25 F-5 pilots out against the F-22s knowing that you're going to 'expend' a bunch of them on the off chance of a 'golden BB' hit on the Raptor? Real fight, not ACMI training. How would the tactics of the aggressors have to change if they were up against a live AIM-120 vs the risk of a little buzzer going off when they're 'killed' I bet a lot of those F-22 'kills' wouldn't have happened if the F-5s were really risking anything. That's why the "mass quantities of lesser capable aircraft" strategy is pretty much dead now. The differences in aircraft ability are too great. Everyone gets the best they can afford. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 That's why the "mass quantities of lesser capable aircraft" strategy is pretty much dead now. The differences in aircraft ability are too great. Everyone gets the best they can afford. I always like to point out that the "we will lose five but get one of theirs" argument started to lose steam when F-15s were getting five of theirs but not suffering any loses. That throws a wrench in the attrition strategy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Don't buy tha PAK-FA yet... As i totally forgot answer to both of these points, please, remind me: 1: How much is F-35 delayed so far? 2: How much is operational T-50 delayed? :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 2: How much is operational T-50 delayed? I give up whats the answer? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I always like to point out that the "we will lose five but get one of theirs" argument started to lose steam when F-15s were getting five of theirs but not suffering any loses. That throws a wrench in the attrition strategy. :doh:/> I'm a big fan of the US approach to air supremacy but I have to note that the F-15 never faced any opponents who had numerical superiority. Closest match-up from a quality standpoint would have been during the Kosovo nastiness and we saw 4-ship Eagle flights going against solo Yugoslav MiG-29's. Iraq was no different. F-15's were going against single aircraft or at best a two-ship enemy formation. I think the last time the USAF faced off against an enemy who had superior numbers was during the Korean War. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 17, 2013 Author Share Posted July 17, 2013 As i totally forgot answer to both of these points, please, remind me: 1: How much is F-35 delayed so far? 2: How much is operational T-50 delayed? :)/> It is fair to say the F-35 exceeds the PAK-FA in performance, technology, and cost/schedule overuns. With the Indian variant delayed 2 years before the program has started, though, the cost schedule gap is closing! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I'm a big fan of the US approach to air supremacy but I have to note that the F-15 never faced any opponents who had numerical superiority. Closest match-up from a quality standpoint would have been during the Kosovo nastiness and we saw 4-ship Eagle flights going against solo Yugoslav MiG-29's. Iraq was no different. F-15's were going against single aircraft or at best a two-ship enemy formation. I think the last time the USAF faced off against an enemy who had superior numbers was during the Korean War. So I guess we also have to include how many countries can actually make the attrition concept actually happen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) I give up whats the answer? For RuAF it is still going according to the plan. To be precise, first "serial" bort due for delivery before 31'th December of 2015. Information freely available on russian MoD site. (!) I am sure it has slided to the right (how many programs have not?) but most certainly i think it is highly ironic talking about possible T-50 delays in F-35 thread. In fact, it is so ironic it almost hurt. It is fair to say the F-35 exceeds the PAK-FA in performance, technology, and cost/schedule overuns. With the Indian variant delayed 2 years before the program has started, though, the cost schedule gap is closing! Bullseye on last point, first points laughable at best. T-50 for India is most certainly delayed, i don't disagree there for a second. But considering RuAF delivery is seemingly more or less on track, question has to be asked why it is delayed. Seems Indians couldn't decide exactly what they wanted. How is that MRCA deal holding up, is it signed yet? ;)/> *hint* Edited July 17, 2013 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) For RuAF it is still going according to the plan. To be precise, first "serial" bort due for delivery before 31'th December of 2015. Information freely available on russian MoD site. (!) I am sure it has slided to the right (how many programs have not?) but most certainly i think it is highly ironic talking about possible T-50 delays in F-35 thread. In fact, it is so ironic it almost hurt. I didn't know it was a competition, but ok. your plane is less delayed so far. Congrats. I wasn't aware the T-50 was meant to compete with the F-35. I thought it was supposed to compete with the F-22. T-50 for India is most certainly delayed, i don't disagree there for a second. Then whats the problem? he linked an an Indian article that said the Indian Air Force was delayed. Edited July 17, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
westie7 Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight Aviation International News -- 5 July 2013 http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-07-05/uk-will-try-boost-f-35b-landing-weight  Found that article interesting when the news of the F-35 squadron plans were announced in the UK press today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-23356646 Big difference here between The tornados leaving RAF Lossiemouth in 2014 until F-35 arrives in 2016 or 2018? Depending on whether you believe the UK MOD or international industry press. Either way there will be practically no Airborne Anti Ship capability to cover the North Sea up to Norway after 2014 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 18, 2013 Author Share Posted July 18, 2013 The UK plans are a bit puzzling. Guess they figure they can make due for a couple years. Heck, they retired the Harrier and nothing has happened.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) The UK plans are a bit puzzling. Has been my response for some time now. Edited July 18, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DutyCat Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Bullseye on last point, first points laughable at best. I for one will be shocked if the T-50 outperforms the F-35 in anything other than a WVR knife fight. Even with superior kinetics, I don't think it will match up as an integrated combat system. They are not building F-35's to lose to T-50s, Flankers, or anything else. Even the vaunted Raptor might have some trouble. My understanding is the F-35 avionics system is significantly more advanced than the Raptors. I will be the first to admit that I don't know anything more than what is publicly available. But it seems that the more advanced electronic systems, as long as they are working properly, carry the day more often than not. We will just have to wait and see, I guess. They will probably never fight each other anyway. I can't see us ever getting into a real scrap with Russia or China, really. If anything, it will be the same old limited proxy wars or fights with rogish client states, like it has been for decades now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Either way there will be practically no Airborne Anti Ship capability to cover the North Sea up to Norway after 2014 I don't think we have to worry about the Russian Northern Fleet surging down from Murmansk anytime soon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 And are you totally dismissing Viking raids!? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
westie7 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I don't think we have to worry about the Russian Northern Fleet surging down from Murmansk anytime soon. No but when we last had a Rusky warship off the coast at Lossiemouth there was no Maritime Patrol aircraft to shadow and the nearest frigate was 600miles away in the south of England. Other than QRA launches to intercept Bears which are becoming more common in recent years. Ivan could zig zag in between Offshore platforms and no one could do a thing about it. Kind of makes Ministry of Defence an oxymoron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 No but when we last had a Rusky warship off the coast at Lossiemouth there was no Maritime Patrol aircraft to shadow and the nearest frigate was 600miles away in the south of England. Other than QRA launches to intercept Bears which are becoming more common in recent years. Ivan could zig zag in between Offshore platforms and no one could do a thing about it. Kind of makes Ministry of Defence an oxymoron Is the RN out of submarines? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) No but when we last had a Rusky warship off the coast at Lossiemouth there was no Maritime Patrol aircraft to shadow and the nearest frigate was 600miles away in the south of England. Other than QRA launches to intercept Bears which are becoming more common in recent years. Ivan could zig zag in between Offshore platforms and no one could do a thing about it. Kind of makes Ministry of Defence an oxymoron I honestly don't know why things are done there the way they are, other than every year there is less and less money to play with. Sometimes I think the people who give the MoD money do it with a "Lets see you find your way out of this!!" evil laugh. Every year the MoD scrapes by, but with less and less to show. even the most inventive people need money to do what they are being asked to do. This is the same place that folded its Fleet Air Arm into its Air Force, and then a few years later sold all the aircraft they were using. Step 1: retire the sea harrier Step 2: fold the FAA into the RAF, use their harriers Step 3: retire all the harriers. Be fun to see what step 4 is. The MoD is constantly being "forked" no, thats not a euphemism. If you can force your opponent to "fork" where he has to pick one or the other, you force them into impossible problems that corner them. Thats the plan with the F-35 in combat by the way, introducing tactical and strategic problems that constantly force opponents in to picking the lesser of two evils. You want the carriers? Its going to take total force commitment. You want the Air fields? total force commitment. It won't be possible to get both, so pick your poison. Edited July 19, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 Step 4: Profit. Bean counters are the same everywhere. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Interesting article about the USN's upcoming Block III AIM-9X upgrade. 60% increase in range over the Block II model, turning the Sidewinder into a true BVR weapon (acknowledging that the current AIM-9X is already close to being considered BVR). Supposedly this is because the USN seems convinced that opposing forces will soon have the ability to jam the AMRAAM's guidance system (and I believe I read somewhere that they are forecasting that the bad guys will also soon have the ability to jam the F-22 & F35's radars). http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-hopes-to-increase-aim-9x-range-by-60-388468/ On a related note, did they finally figure out what was wrong with the AMRAAM's motor or are these missiles still banned from use? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Could they just put an IR Seeker head on the AIM-120 ? :unsure: -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.