World Naval Ships Forums  
VIEW ALL OF OUR CURRENT SPECIAL OFFERS HERE!

Go Back   World Naval Ships Forums > Naval History > Other Naval Topics
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Other Naval Topics Other general naval or navy-related topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76  
Old 15-07-2016, 12:00
harry.gibbon's Avatar
harry.gibbon harry.gibbon is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 7,851
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post
Can't assist Harry. Will leave it to you experts...... But in this case I would suggest that the video will stand up to the scrutiny of modern military pilots.
No probs David, methinks Jon (BB242) has given me the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBat242 View Post
The APG-81 radar of the F-35, like the APG-77 of the F-22A, is a "Low Probability of Intercept" (LPI) radar.

They are capable of changing the direction, power and shape of the radar beam very rapidly, so they can acquire target data, and in the meantime minimize the chance that the radar signal is detected or tracked.
Thanks Jon; that info seems to fall in line with my suspicions. I haven't as yet done any reading on the APG-81 LPI radar.

Strange though, especially since I had been reading a PDF paper about Electronic Warfare (EW) receiver systems and Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) radar a little last evening


Little h
__________________

GFXU - HMS Falmouth in Falmouth Bay

Last edited by harry.gibbon : 15-07-2016 at 16:39.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 15-07-2016, 13:45
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

ALIS in the UK

http://aviationweek.com/shownews/alis-arrives-uk

Also, UK's build contribution to the F35.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-f-35/

Last edited by gruntfuttock : 15-07-2016 at 14:09.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 15-07-2016, 16:36
Mitch Hinde Mitch Hinde is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Currently living in Sunbury on Thames.
Posts: 2,247
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Hi All

Extract from an article by David Hobbs, who I am reliably informed is a naval aviation expert.
"The airframes themselves are only part of the system and cannot be operated without the autonomic logistics information system,ALIS. It is used to manage flight operations, planned maintenance, aircraft diagnostics and repair, supply chain management, both pilot and technical training and qualification and individual aircraft documentation".
What else is left to control?
When it was first announced that we would be building 2 new carriers I applauded the decision and imagined that we would be joining the majority of the carrier operating navies in building convential carriers with convential aircraft. I am still at a loss to understand why that decision was made and we are following this route and will always be slightly underwhelmed by the decision no matter how good this aircraft is or is hoped to be. I am still at a loss to understand why we need a stealth aircraft of any description for operations at sea.

Mitch Hinde

Last edited by Mitch Hinde : 15-07-2016 at 16:37. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 15-07-2016, 18:43
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

In regards to David Hobbs, he may have a great deal of knowledge of the RN, but I would say that he is no more of an expert on the F35, than any other aviation historian.

Having read his CV (for want of a better word) I note that he retired almost twenty years ago, and now writes fictional and historical novels. So I would suggest he knows far less about the subject than current authors on the subject. Or indeed those who actually work with it. Link above is one example.

You say what else is there to control, well perhaps the meaning of the acronym ALIS might give you a clue "Autonomic Logistics Information System". So I would imagine there is quite a bit more than logistics to control.

You have asked on numerous occasions why we need a stealth aircraft at sea. You have been asked on numerous occasions what other aircraft do we have to fly off the QE. You never reply to that, indeed you seem to completely ignore the question.

So I find this completely pointless.

Cheers
GF
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 16-07-2016, 16:32
Mitch Hinde Mitch Hinde is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Currently living in Sunbury on Thames.
Posts: 2,247
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Hi GF

Thankyou for your extremely condescending reply and appraisal of David Hobbs knowledge even though you seem not to have understood the question.
It doesn't matter whether it is a convential aircraft fitted to cat and trap. A vertical take off and and landing type required for operations from the ships that we have or a remotely operated drone. Why is a stealth aircraft required for operations at sea. Simples?

Mitch Hinde
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 16-07-2016, 21:03
Domino Domino is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southern Spain
Posts: 382
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

so we have one of these F35B's up in the air, being a single seater the poor pilot is going to have a lot information on a large multi-segment screen, buzzers and lights of various colours to worry about as well as staying in the air.
But he needs more information - where does it come from? What assets are there that can be "stand-off" but capable of providing that information.?

Then as he always knew, he needed fuel, where is that going to come from?

Really must be lonely up there flying a plane that cannot be seen and no one knows where it is.
__________________
Regards
Dom

take a large single malt and chill out
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 16-07-2016, 21:20
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,832
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Hinde View Post
Hi GF

Thankyou for your extremely condescending reply and appraisal of David Hobbs knowledge even though you seem not to have understood the question.
It doesn't matter whether it is a convential aircraft fitted to cat and trap. A vertical take off and and landing type required for operations from the ships that we have or a remotely operated drone. Why is a stealth aircraft required for operations at sea. Simples?

Mitch Hinde
Because others have them?

United StatesF-35 Lightning II – Lockheed Martin / BAE Systems / Northrop Grumman
RussiaPAK FA – Sukhoi
IndiaRussiaFGFA – Sukhoi / HAL
ChinaChengdu J-20 – Chengdu Aircraft Corporation
ChinaShenyang J-31 - Shenyang Aircraft Corporation
IndiaAMCA – ADA / HAL
TurkeyTAI TFX - Turkish Aerospace Industries
IranHESA Shafaq - HESA / IAMI
IranQaher-313
SwedenFlygsystem 2020 - Saab
RussiaMikoyan LMFS - Mikoyan
RussiaPAK DA – Tupolev
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft

But:
Some in the U.S. military are already planning for a day in which stealth becomes mostly obsolete. As The National Interest previously noted, when discussing what America’s sixth generation fighter jet might look like back in February, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said that stealth may be overrated.

“You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated.... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat—I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable. You get my point."

It was not the first time that Greenert had questioned the long-term viability of stealth technology. In a 2012 paper, for instance, he said that better computing power would ultimately greatly undermine the value of stealth.

"Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons," Greenert wrote at the time, according to the Navy Times.

"It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them."

Dave Majumdar has also observed on The National Interest that, “Russia and China are already working on new networked air defenses coupled with new radars operating in the UHF and VHF-bands that threaten to neutralize America’s massive investment in fifth-generation fighters. Fighter-sized stealth aircraft are only optimized to perform against high-frequency fire control band radars operating in the Ku, X, C and portions of the S-band.”

Not everyone completely agrees, however. For example, in response to Greenert’s comments about the stealth capabilities of America’s future 6th Generation fighter, Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command, said that stealth will continue to be "hugely important."

“Stealth is wonderful, but you have to have more than stealth," Carlisle said, according to the Air Force Times. "You have to have fusion, you have to have different capabilities across the spectrum. It will be incredibly important. It won't be the only key attribute, and it isn't today."

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...aircraft-13708
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 16-07-2016, 21:39
Domino Domino is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southern Spain
Posts: 382
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

What goes around comes around
__________________
Regards
Dom

take a large single malt and chill out
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 16-07-2016, 21:55
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Hinde View Post
Hi GF

Thankyou for your extremely condescending reply and appraisal of David Hobbs knowledge even though you seem not to have understood the question.
It doesn't matter whether it is a convential aircraft fitted to cat and trap. A vertical take off and and landing type required for operations from the ships that we have or a remotely operated drone. Why is a stealth aircraft required for operations at sea. Simples?

Mitch Hinde
Why isn't it required ? Hope that's not too condescending for you.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 16-07-2016, 22:41
Surfgun Surfgun is online now
Vice-Admiral
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,597
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

It's required to prevent a corpse that is very wet, very burnt or nowadays decapitated.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 16-07-2016, 22:48
Mitch Hinde Mitch Hinde is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Currently living in Sunbury on Thames.
Posts: 2,247
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Hi All

Thankyou Pelican for a reply that comes nearest to answering my question, although I still don't see the need for a stealth aircraft a 1000 miles from land. If you know where the carrier is, and with todays satellite technology that isn't too difficult, you know where the aircraft are. Any stealth advantage is immediately negated.

Mitch Hinde
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 16-07-2016, 23:02
Mitch Hinde Mitch Hinde is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Currently living in Sunbury on Thames.
Posts: 2,247
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Hi All

As I have just received these from my No1 son at Fairford thought I might share them.

Mitch Hinde
Attached Images
File Type: jpg F35 at Fairford.jpg (27.2 KB, 11 views)
File Type: jpg F35 at Fairford1.jpg (26.5 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 16-07-2016, 23:06
harry.gibbon's Avatar
harry.gibbon harry.gibbon is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 7,851
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Hinde View Post
Hi All

..... I still don't see the need for a stealth aircraft a 1000 miles from land. If you know where the carrier is, and with todays satellite technology that isn't too difficult, you know where the aircraft are. Any stealth advantage is immediately negated.

Mitch Hinde
It might be said that with this one post you have provided the rationale for the immediate disbandment, by every country having a Navy, of their respective surface force assets

However, it infers that todays satellites and/or the associated technology is impervious to attack, interference, or even destruction.


Little h
__________________

GFXU - HMS Falmouth in Falmouth Bay

Last edited by harry.gibbon : 17-07-2016 at 00:37. Reason: re-wording the text
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 17-07-2016, 07:39
BlackBat242's Avatar
BlackBat242 BlackBat242 is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,166
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Hinde View Post
Hi All

Thankyou Pelican for a reply that comes nearest to answering my question, although I still don't see the need for a stealth aircraft a 1000 miles from land. If you know where the carrier is, and with todays satellite technology that isn't too difficult, you know where the aircraft are. Any stealth advantage is immediately negated.

Mitch Hinde
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry.gibbon View Post
It might be said that with this one post you have provided the rationale for the immediate disbandment, by every country having a Navy, of their respective surface force assets

However, it infers that todays satellites and/or the associated technology is impervious to attack, interference, or even destruction.


Little h


And that knowing the general area of an aircraft means that weapons can be targeted on that aircraft with 100% accuracy. This is a completely false assumption.

In reality, weapons have a very hard time targeting any aircraft unless its EXACT location is known, and weapons-guidance systems (either on the weapons-launching platform, on an separate guidance platform, or on the weapon itself) have a solid lock on the aircraft.

The whole purpose for "stealth" technology is to make it harder for the exact location of the aircraft to be known, and for the weapons-guidance systems to get that solid "lock-on".


In addition to that list of modern highly-capable (or at least claimed to be so) aircraft given by Pelican, there are also such things as modern highly-effective ground/ship-launched anti-aircraft missiles - which are subject to the same loss of effectiveness against "stealth" aircraft as any other such weapons/weapons guidance systems.


As for the "1,000 miles at sea" crap - apparently you have no knowledge of (or are pretending ignorance of) carrier warfare. While SOME carrier combat operations are carried out far from shore (against other ships, many of which have the anti-aircraft systems mentioned above), most of their combat is in support of land combat operations - especially where gaining the use of land airfields for non-carrier fighters is difficult or impossible (either due to political complications or to geography, such as the air combats in 1982 in the South Atlantic).

As such, the carrier-based aircraft will be facing the previously-discussed air & land based anti-aircraft systems/weapons, and "stealth" aircraft will survive those threats much more easily than non-"stealth" designs possibly could.
__________________
Only a fool fights in a burning house. __ Jon A., Sgt USMC '81-'89; CV-61 USS Ranger '85-'87
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 17-07-2016, 13:19
harry.gibbon's Avatar
harry.gibbon harry.gibbon is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 7,851
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican View Post

But:
Some in the U.S. military are already planning for a day in which stealth becomes mostly obsolete. As The National Interest previously noted, when discussing what America’s sixth generation fighter jet might look like back in February, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said that stealth may be overrated.

“You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated.... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat—I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable. You get my point."

It was not the first time that Greenert had questioned the long-term viability of stealth technology. In a 2012 paper, for instance, he said that better computing power would ultimately greatly undermine the value of stealth.

"Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons," Greenert wrote at the time, according to the Navy Times.

"It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems — or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them."

Dave Majumdar has also observed on The National Interest that, “Russia and China are already working on new networked air defenses coupled with new radars operating in the UHF and VHF-bands that threaten to neutralize America’s massive investment in fifth-generation fighters. Fighter-sized stealth aircraft are only optimized to perform against high-frequency fire control band radars operating in the Ku, X, C and portions of the S-band.”

Not everyone completely agrees, however. For example, in response to Greenert’s comments about the stealth capabilities of America’s future 6th Generation fighter, Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command, said that stealth will continue to be "hugely important."

“Stealth is wonderful, but you have to have more than stealth," Carlisle said, according to the Air Force Times. "You have to have fusion, you have to have different capabilities across the spectrum. It will be incredibly important. It won't be the only key attribute, and it isn't today."

From: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...aircraft-13708
I preferred reading the following linked article contained in the USNI News website. Perhaps just a more comprehensive version of the above, yet it seems more balanced somehow.

Stealth Vs. Electronic Attack
By: Dave Majumdar
April 21, 2014 6:19 AM • Updated: April 21, 2014 8:25 AM



Little h
__________________

GFXU - HMS Falmouth in Falmouth Bay
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 17-07-2016, 14:01
Domino Domino is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southern Spain
Posts: 382
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

I can see exactly where Mitch is coming from on this. Especially when the aircraft only has a 450 mile operational radius - providing it isn't "delayed" on the way, when its range will be drastically reduced.
Find the carrier - not hard, you can pick up its primary radar 1000 miles away, so you know in what direction to look.
The place to look for the aircraft is no more than a 40 degree (or less) segment from the carrier towards the enemy location. And you know what he is there for - primarily land attack, negation of assets.

Every one is working so hard to make this piece of flying carbon fibre disappear, but it is actually visible to the naked eye, it has a sound signature, drawing peoples attention, and it cannot hide the heat radiated out of its single engine, dependent on the angle viewed from.
That it may absorb or deflect radar/lidar efforts to find it that is not a given, in many instances it all depends on distance. And a good operator may just "see a hole".

But if you have been really clever and knocked out all the enemy satellites, don't you think he will have done the same to yours? That is primary task at the onset of hostilities.

One final question - who will these super dooper toys be used against? As those with similar toys will posture and then withdraw it only leaves those small countries who don't have such nice toys. The Russian airforce hated Afghanistan because the local sheep herder with a .303 could knock out one of their toys.

Perhaps someone was given a free copy of Firefox by Craig Thomas and thought it might be a good idea, on paper.
__________________
Regards
Dom

take a large single malt and chill out
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 17-07-2016, 15:09
Rob Hoole's Avatar
Rob Hoole Rob Hoole is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Waterlooville, UK
Posts: 1,034
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Hinde View Post
...I am still at a loss to understand why we need a stealth aircraft of any description for operations at sea...

Mitch Hinde
When would stealth not be needed by a carrier-borne aircraft?
a. When it's conducting covert reconnaissance or surveillance operations in enemy airspace?

b. When it's prosecuting a formation of enemy missile-armed aircraft approaching the force?

c. When it's conducting operations against enemy surface units armed with SAMs?

d. When it's conducting first day SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) operations against a land-based enemy armed with SAMs?

e. When it's conducting follow-up strike operations against land targets with mobile SAMs deployed?

f. When it's conducting CAS (Close Air Support) for amphibious forces landed ashore and the enemy is armed with AAMs and SAMs?
The F-35's attributes not only facilitate AD (Air Defence) and Strike missions conducted from carriers but also the ability to conduct their own ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition & Reconnaissance) operations. These systems are mostly passive and benefit from extremely clever sensor fusion. The F-35 has everything needed to get close to the enemy without being detected and, when necessary, destroy him before he even knows it's there. The F-35 also works particularly well in combination with less complex 4th and 4.5th generation aircraft.

Stealth can never mean total invisibility but the ability to destroy the enemy while beyond his detection range or at least escaping precise enough detection long enough for him to achieve a firing solution. The F-35 flying community raves about the aircraft's 5th Generation LO (Low Observability or 'Stealth') characteristics, combined with its unparalleled SA (Situational Awareness) and EW (Electronic Warfare) capabilities. These are revolutionary game changers against any target whether it is in the air, on the sea or on land.

Imagine, if you will, being blindfolded and entering an enormous room armed with a handgun. You are superior to your opponent in speed and agility but he is also armed with a handgun and you are unable to see or hear him. Not only that but he is able to communicate silently with his blindfolded allies, who are also invisible to you, and give them precise targeting information that enables them to shoot you with their handguns, all while remaining invisible to you himself. Your gun might as well be a knife for all the good it does you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Hinde View Post
...If you know where the carrier is, and with todays satellite technology that isn't too difficult, you know where the aircraft are. Any stealth advantage is immediately negated.
If finding a carrier were that easy, how did the Argentinians have such difficulty finding Hermes and Invincible during the Falklands campaign? Carriers are surprisingly difficult to detect, identify and fix with the precision necessary for weapon acquisition, even using high resolution keyhole aperture satellites, let alone the successful prosecution of attacks in light of the CVBG's hard and soft kill defences. A CVBG can move well over 500 miles in a day, too.
__________________
Best wishes,

Rob
www.mcdoa.org.uk


Last edited by Rob Hoole : 17-07-2016 at 15:50.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 17-07-2016, 15:48
Mitch Hinde Mitch Hinde is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Currently living in Sunbury on Thames.
Posts: 2,247
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Hi All

Dear Blackbat, may I refer you to post 52 where I stated that as an ex sparker (radio operator) who never served on or with carriers, a brief visit to my profile will conform this, I have very limited knowledge of carrier warfare, most of it gleaned from, or should I say, tainted by Hollywood. Therefore I am reliant on those with the expertise to explain these things in words of one syllable. In that way I may become more knowlegable and benefit from their wisdom.
I must say that I am finding this discussion most enlightening.

Mitch Hinde
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 17-07-2016, 18:18
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

#91 +

Here was I hoping that at last I had come across a thread/blog that was devoid of trolls,from my short time on here it appears I was completely wrong.

Bye.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 17-07-2016, 18:47
jbryce1437's Avatar
jbryce1437 jbryce1437 is offline
Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Roker, Sunderland, England
Posts: 8,996
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
#91 +

Here was I hoping that at last I had come across a thread/blog that was devoid of trolls,from my short time on here it appears I was completely wrong.

Bye.
I can't see anything in posts #91, #92 or #93 which would go to describe the posters as trolls. We encourage healthy debate in the Forums and views, different to your own, are inevitable. Sorry to see you go.

Jim
__________________
Old Ships: Raleigh 1963, Collingwood 63, Ark Royal 64, Collingwood 67, Undaunted 68, Porstmouth FMG 70, Exmouth 72, Victory 1974 as JEM, EM, OEM, LOEM, POOEL. Then 28 years in the Fire Service
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 17-07-2016, 19:15
Domino Domino is offline
Lieutenant-Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southern Spain
Posts: 382
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Hoole View Post
When would stealth not be needed by a carrier-borne aircraft?
a. When it's conducting covert reconnaissance or surveillance operations in enemy airspace?

b. When it's prosecuting a formation of enemy missile-armed aircraft approaching the force?

c. When it's conducting operations against enemy surface units armed with SAMs?

d. When it's conducting first day SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) operations against a land-based enemy armed with SAMs?

e. When it's conducting follow-up strike operations against land targets with mobile SAMs deployed?

f. When it's conducting CAS (Close Air Support) for amphibious forces landed ashore and the enemy is armed with AAMs and SAMs?


The F-35's attributes not only facilitate AD (Air Defence) and Strike missions conducted from carriers but also the ability to conduct their own ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition & Reconnaissance) operations. These systems are mostly passive and benefit from extremely clever sensor fusion. The F-35 has everything needed to get close to the enemy without being detected and, when necessary, destroy him before he even knows it's there. The F-35 also works particularly well in combination with less complex 4th and 4.5th generation aircraft.

Stealth can never mean total invisibility but the ability to destroy the enemy while beyond his detection range or at least escaping precise enough detection long enough for him to achieve a firing solution. The F-35 flying community raves about the aircraft's 5th Generation LO (Low Observability or 'Stealth') characteristics, combined with its unparalleled SA (Situational Awareness) and EW (Electronic Warfare) capabilities. These are revolutionary game changers against any target whether it is in the air, on the sea or on land.

Imagine, if you will, being blindfolded and entering an enormous room armed with a handgun. You are superior to your opponent in speed and agility but he is also armed with a handgun and you are unable to see or hear him. Not only that but he is able to communicate silently with his blindfolded allies, who are also invisible to you, and give them precise targeting information that enables them to shoot you with their handguns, all while remaining invisible to you himself. Your gun might as well be a knife for all the good it does you.



If finding a carrier were that easy, how did the Argentinians have such difficulty finding Hermes and Invincible during the Falklands campaign? Carriers are surprisingly difficult to detect, identify and fix with the precision necessary for weapon acquisition, even using high resolution keyhole aperture satellites, let alone the successful prosecution of attacks in light of the CVBG's hard and soft kill defences. A CVBG can move well over 500 miles in a day, too.
are you sure the word "not" is correct in that instance.?
in my view they are all instances when any aircraft would want to be stealthy.
__________________
Regards
Dom

take a large single malt and chill out
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 17-07-2016, 20:32
Rob Hoole's Avatar
Rob Hoole Rob Hoole is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Waterlooville, UK
Posts: 1,034
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
#91 +

Here was I hoping that at last I had come across a thread/blog that was devoid of trolls,from my short time on here it appears I was completely wrong.

Bye.
GF,

I share your pain. That's why he's the only member of this forum on my 'Ignore List'.
__________________
Best wishes,

Rob
www.mcdoa.org.uk

Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 17-07-2016, 21:54
gruntfuttock gruntfuttock is offline
Rear-Admiral
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: nottingham
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbryce1437 View Post
I can't see anything in posts #91, #92 or #93 which would go to describe the posters as trolls. We encourage healthy debate in the Forums and views, different to your own, are inevitable. Sorry to see you go.

Jim
Post 92 was never mentioned, only one poster in post 91 and his previous posts. Healthy debate,yes. Views different from my own,yes. Constant contradictory remarks, whilst ignoring and refusing to answer relevent questions, No.
Have a nice day.
GF
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 18-07-2016, 09:24
jbryce1437's Avatar
jbryce1437 jbryce1437 is offline
Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Roker, Sunderland, England
Posts: 8,996
Default Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntfuttock View Post
Post 92 was never mentioned, only one poster in post 91 and his previous posts. Healthy debate,yes. Views different from my own,yes. Constant contradictory remarks, whilst ignoring and refusing to answer relevent questions, No.
Have a nice day.
GF
Ok, I misread it as #91 +, assuming it was #91 onwards.

Jim
__________________
Old Ships: Raleigh 1963, Collingwood 63, Ark Royal 64, Collingwood 67, Undaunted 68, Porstmouth FMG 70, Exmouth 72, Victory 1974 as JEM, EM, OEM, LOEM, POOEL. Then 28 years in the Fire Service
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 18-07-2016, 13:46
Pelican's Avatar
Pelican Pelican is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,832
Exclamation Re: Lockheed Martin F35B Lightning II

LOCKHEED & THE UK

See: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lo...n-uk-n8829307q

And attached.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg f35b.jpg (847.6 KB, 6 views)
__________________
H.M.S. PELICAN - GGCV - L86 U86 B294 & F 86 - WHAT I HAVE I HOLD - 1938~1958 - 'A wonderful bird is the Pelican. Its beak can hold more than its belly can.'
Reply With Quote
Reply



Ship Search by Name : Advanced Search
Random Timeline Entry : 9th January 2006 : HMS Argyll : Plymouth Sound

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HMS Lightning and HMS Lookout TallPaul91 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 18 05-01-2018 20:41
HMS Martin G44 geekgirl101 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 5 21-10-2010 06:46
Lightning/Staunch/Victoria mossie Royal Navy Ships and Crews 0 29-07-2010 19:58
HMS Lightning jbc1 Royal Navy Ships and Crews 4 25-01-2008 22:51


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:49.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.