Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Stealth Turkey

Share             
  1. #1
    Member Skull and Bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    546
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    India India

    Stealth Turkey

    Congressman Paul Ryan’s laudable if sometimes misguided efforts to trim the federal deficit deserve support. So here’s an idea for him. Want to lose a trillion dollars in ugly budget fat? Cut off the F-35 fighter/bomber.

    $1 trillion is now the estimated life-cycle cost of the F-35. Some calculations place the figure even higher, closer to $1.5 trillion.

    How could the president and Congress contemplate spending that much for an airplane? The answer goes back to the futility and vast casualty count of World War I on the Western Front. Even before that bloodbath ended, men were searching for a better way to make war, one that would collapse an opponent quickly with comparatively small losses. Air power seemed to offer the answer. While strategic bombing had failed in World War I, General Giulio Douhet in Italy and General Billy Mitchell in the U.S., among others, thought it was the key to rapid victory.

    It wasn’t, but as propagandists Douhet, Mitchell, and company were highly able. They created a myth that surrounded military aircraft of all types, not just bombers. The associated myth of the fighter pilot as the new white knight added gloss. Today, politicians and the public overestimate what aircraft bring to war. That is why both turn out in large numbers for air shows, and it is also why the notion of spending a trillion dollars for an airplane does not get laughed to death.

    If we turn from myths to facts, we quickly see that the F-35 is unnecessary. The United States already has the world’s best fighter planes in the F-15 and F-16. How we got them is a story relevant to the F-35.

    In the late 1960s and the 1970s, the Air Force was working to design a new fighter. As each element of the bureaucracy added its favorite bells and whistles, the plane grew in size, weight, complexity, and cost, while combat effectiveness fell—just what has happened to the F-35.

    Desperate to reverse the trends, the Air Force called in an ornery, eccentric fighter pilot named John Boyd. Boyd, who developed the energy-management tactics now used by fighter pilots everywhere, converted the tactical qualities a fighter needs into a new set of maneuverability measurement equations that could be applied to fighter design. He turned the incipient turkey into the F-15, a good if overlarge fighter. (Small size is important in fighters because the bigger the plane, the easier it is for the enemy to see and thus take by surprise.)

    When the Air Force bureaucracy persisted in adding weight and complexity, Boyd and his civilian associate Pierre Sprey kept working the equations. Their goal was a fighter of half the size and weight of the F-15 with higher maneuverability and a lower price. The outcome of that work was the F-16, which was both better as a fighter than the F-15 and much cheaper. Needless to say, that achievement made Boyd and Sprey the most hated men in town.

    The Pentagon says the F-15 and F-16 aren’t good enough now because they aren’t “stealth” aircraft like the F-35. The problem is, stealth is a fraud. Supposedly, enemy radars cannot pick up stealth planes. But they can. Early in our 1999 war with Serbia, the Serbs shot down one of the Air Force’s stealth F-117 fighter/bombers. Beside the wreckage, they put a sign, in English: “Sorry, we did not know it was supposed to be invisible.”

    Long-wavelength search radars, like those used in the Battle of Britain and still sold around the world by the Russians, readily detect stealth aircraft, and there is nothing aeronautical engineers can do to get around that problem. They would have to put anti-radar coatings one or two meters thick on the planes’ wings, turning them into unflyable blobs.

    The Pentagon replies that stealth will still protect the F-35 from the short-wave radars in enemy fighters and radar-guided missiles. That claim also fails under scrutiny. First, radar-guided missiles—ground-to-air and air-to-air—have a 50-year record of dismal combat performance, with probabilities of kill (Pk) seldom attaining 0.1: one hit in ten shots. It’s hard to justify a trillion dollars to defend against that.

    Second, to amortize its cost, the F-35 will have to be in service for decades. How many generations of missiles can be optimized against it in that time?

    Third, the short-wave radars carried by fighters can pick up stealth airplanes outside certain limited “cones” of angles. “Stealth” can defeat short-wavelength radars only if the radar is looking directly at the nose or side profile of the stealth aircraft. As soon as the stealth aircraft maneuvers and shows some of its top or bottom area, it can be seen by any radar—and in combat, any plane that fails to maneuver dies quickly. A friend of mine who flew F-16s told me he had once acquired an F-117 on radar. He said it would come and go, but the signal was strong enough to tell him something was there to go take a look at.

    If an enemy fighter does go looking for an F-35, the stealth plane will be in trouble. The design characteristics required for (non-existent) stealth make the plane a grape. It has a thrust-to-weight ratio of just .85:1, less than the F-15, F-16, and most foreign fighters, which means its acceleration is sluggish. Even worse, its wing is so small that every square foot has to support more than 108 pounds of weight. That high wing loading means the F-35 is even less maneuverable than the infamous F-105 of the Vietnam War, which was hated by pilots, who called it the “Thud” or the “Lead Sled.” Its inability to maneuver made the F-105 the favorite target of Hanoi’s MiG-21 pilots. What do you call a fighter that can’t accelerate and can’t turn? A kill.

    All this for just a trillion dollars.

    As it happens, no thanks to the Pentagon, we have an alternative. Not only would it cost less and perform better than the F-35—anything would—it would cost less and perform better than the F-16, a much tougher challenge.

    A bunch of the guys who designed the F-16 have been working on a worthy successor. They have conceptualized a superb fighter—very small, incomparably agile and lethal—that could put America ahead of everybody else for years to come. Note to Paul Ryan: it’s so cheap we could buy it and still save around a trillion dollars.

    That, of course, is why the Pentagon won’t talk to the designers and Congress has never held a hearing to look at their ideas. The F-35 is good at only one mission, but that mission is the one that counts: bringing in bucks. A trillion of them, from our pockets.

    William S. Lind is director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation.

    Stealth Turkey | The American Conservative
    The Following User Says Thank You to Skull and Bones For This Useful Post: KingKong


  2. #2
    Senior Member KingKong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,743
    Thanks
    4060
    Mentioned
    90 Post(s)
    Pakistan UK
    The F-35 program is nothing but corporate welfare to the MIC. The program has been plagued with design problems & budget overruns. Pilots who have flown the aircraft report it to be like flying a minivan.

    In the height of the cold-war, while the American MIC was producing high-cost aircraft, the Russians were churning out low-cost MIGs that were just as performant as the western planes, for half the cost. Now of course, that strategy is “bad for business” for Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but good for the budget. It’s clear that profits for the weapons manufacturers trumps budgetary wisdom for the country.

    Interesting....

  3. #3
    Member Skull and Bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    546
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    India India
    We had a detailed discussion about pros (hardly any) and cons of F-35s in IDF, this article seems to be a summary of everything we discussed. Sometimes i think we should sue the author on copyright laws.

  4. #4
    Member KRAIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    455
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    India India
    I wish our Navy don't even consider F-35B for our ACC. Rather buy more Rafale-M.

  5. #5
    Member Skull and Bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    546
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by KRAIT View Post
    I wish our Navy don't even consider F-35B for our ACC. Rather buy more Rafale-M.
    I was more inclined towards next generation F-18 Super Hornets.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F-18_Hornet_2.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	50.8 KB 
ID:	643

    And few in the lines of 20-30 wouldn't hurt much, given that it'll give us additional strike advantage from our future assault landing crafts, probably Mistral.

  6. #6
    Member KRAIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    455
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by Skull and Bones View Post
    I was more inclined towards next generation F-18 Super Hornets.
    And few in the lines of 20-30 wouldn't hurt much, given that it'll give us additional strike advantage from our future assault landing crafts, probably Mistral.
    I do like it more than Rafale-M but it will come with strings attached. We can't trust US on aircrafts of this importance.

  7. #7
    Member Skull and Bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    546
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by KRAIT View Post
    I do like it more than Rafale-M but it will come with strings attached. We can't trust US on aircrafts of this importance.
    Next time it won't come with strings attached, Americans have learned how to deal with baniya hindus. When we're paying money, we know how to exploit the dukandars.

    P-8Is, AH-64 Aapche, C-130s, C-17s can be cited as an example. All are strategic acquisitions.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Skull and Bones For This Useful Post: KRAIT


  8. #8
    Member KRAIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    455
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by Skull and Bones View Post
    Next time it won't come with strings attached, Americans have learned how to deal with baniya hindus. When we're paying money, we know how to exploit the dukandars.

    P-8Is, AH-64 Aapche, C-130s, C-17s can be cited as an example. All are strategic acquisitions.
    If they sell, some Growlers with Super Hornets, our Navy will have very strong aerial wing. I wish.

  9. #9
    Member SpArK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    357
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by Skull and Bones View Post
    Next time it won't come with strings attached, Americans have learned how to deal with baniya hindus. When we're paying money, we know how to exploit the dukandars.

    P-8Is, AH-64 Aapche, C-130s, C-17s can be cited as an example. All are strategic acquisitions.

    If then my vote is also for hornets..

    The commonality of F414 engines, the clear price tags, the delivery, the professionalism are un paralleled.
    The Following User Says Thank You to SpArK For This Useful Post: KRAIT


  10. #10
    Member Skull and Bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    546
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    India India
    ^^^

    What happened to Rafale fan boys these days?
    The Following User Says Thank You to Skull and Bones For This Useful Post: KRAIT


  11. #11
    Member SpArK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    357
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by Skull and Bones View Post
    ^^^

    What happened to Rafale fan boys these days?

    The negotiations and subsequent delays are irking mucH.

    But Rafale remains the favorite.

  12. #12
    Member Skull and Bones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    922
    Thanks
    546
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by SpArK View Post
    The negotiations and subsequent delays are irking mucH.

    But Rafale remains the favorite.
    Yes, it should be. But F-18s comes with decades of carrier operation. And who knows, the deal might be further sweetened by giving us technical know-hows of EMALs by USA.

    If i remember correctly, US offered us Kitty Hawk for free with 70-80 F-18 Super Hornets.

  13. #13
    Member KRAIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    475
    Thanks
    455
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by Skull and Bones View Post
    Yes, it should be. But F-18s comes with decades of carrier operation. And who knows, the deal might be further sweetened by giving us technical know-hows of EMALs by USA.

    If i remember correctly, US offered us Kitty Hawk for free with 70-80 F-18 Super Hornets.
    If i remember correctly, US offered us Kitty Hawk for free with 70-80 F-18 Super Hornets.



    Give a link.

    All I remember is Britain did offer QE class ACC. They won.t give EMALS if we don't order more planes.

  14. #14
    Member SpArK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    357
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by Skull and Bones View Post
    Yes, it should be. But F-18s comes with decades of carrier operation. And who knows, the deal might be further sweetened by giving us technical know-hows of EMALs by USA.

    If i remember correctly, US offered us Kitty Hawk for free with 70-80 F-18 Super Hornets.
    But boeing has given up hope in MMRCA.. last heard was MiG-35 guys lurking around and the never say die EFT guys are still around.

    US is still hanging on the F-35 argument.

    They didnt capitalize on the engine deals or have aggressively marketed on behalf of Hornets.

  15. #15
    Member SpArK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    357
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    India India
    Quote Originally Posted by KRAIT View Post
    If i remember correctly, US offered us Kitty Hawk for free with 70-80 F-18 Super Hornets.




    Give a link.

    All I remember is Britain did offer QE class ACC. They won.t give EMALS if we don't order more planes.
    US not offering Kitty Hawk to India: Gates

  16. #16
    Banned RaptorRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,411
    Thanks
    2211
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    China Pakistan
    Stealth Halal Jihad Turkeys

    Lol, find title a bit funny.
    The Following User Says Thank You to RaptorRX For This Useful Post: Wattan


  17. #17
    Senior Member Wattan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,040
    Thanks
    1736
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by KRAIT View Post
    If i remember correctly, US offered us Kitty Hawk for free with 70-80 F-18 Super Hornets.



    Give a link.



    All I remember is Britain did offer QE class ACC. They won.t give EMALS if we don't order more planes.
    eh?? whats the catch whats in it for Americans. Why would they even think to do that?

Similar Threads

  1. Turkey must learn from Pakistan
    By Superkaif in forum Foreign Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th August 2012, 22:24
  2. Turkey seeks SCO membership
    By Aryan_B in forum Turkey Affairs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 1st August 2012, 01:15
  3. India finalizing US $ 10 billion mega stealth frigates’ project
    By Lord Of The Ring in forum Indian Affairs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 9th July 2012, 23:47
  4. Pakistan, Turkey ask for more gas from Iran
    By bilalhaider in forum Turkey Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 6th July 2012, 08:27
  5. Dragging America Into Turkey's War with Syria?
    By Aryan_B in forum U.S. Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2nd July 2012, 12:24

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter