Defense Issues

Military and general security

    Advertisements
  • Follow Defense Issues on WordPress.com
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 244 other followers

  • November 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    2627282930  
  • Categories

  • Advertisements

Posts Tagged ‘capability’

What is the F-35 Good For? Answer: Nothing. It’s Totally Useless.

Posted by Picard578 on November 16, 2015

Note: F-35 might be capable of SEAD/DEAD operations, but even there its low sortie rate / high maintenance downtime and limited payload / endurance will limit its effectiveness.

Défense et Géopolitique

The RealClearDefense website has published an interesting article on the Israeli Air Force – arguably the best in the world. It worries that the IAF, its pilots’ skills notwithstanding, may lose its technological edge, because the F-35 cannot defeat modern Russian fighters, especially those equipped with infrared search and tracking systems:

“If the F-35 cannot hold its own against fourth-generation fighters, which are increasingly equipped with infrared sensors that can detect stealth aircraft, it will be limited to ground-attack missions and require escorts to carry-out operations in contested airspace. The former head of the USAF’s Air Combat Command admitted last year that the F-35 was not built as an air-superiority fighter and needs the USAF’s existing stealth fighter, the F-22, to protect against enemy aircraft.

This shortfall represents a major problem for Israel, which cannot acquire the F-22. Congress banned its export and production ended in 2011. Israel will…

View original post 202 more words

Advertisements

Posted in reblogs | Tagged: , , , | 10 Comments »

A-10 effectiveness assessment

Posted by Picard578 on August 16, 2015

Introduction

A-10 is the premiere close air support fighter today, and one of the very few dedicated CAS platforms in existence. Close air support is one of the most important, and most difficult, missions that air force can be tasked with. However, it is part of a spectrum of missions which require cooperation with other services (army cooperation missions are close air support, armed reconnaissance, battlefield interdiction and tactical reconnaissance; navy cooperation missions are patrol surveillance, air defense and anti-ship attack; missions controlled by the air force are air-to-air, deep interdiction and strategic bombing). As such, close support is typically ignored by air forces in favor of missions that air forces control and undertake by themselves, without any involvement from other services.

Close air support is defined as attack against targets within combat (artillery) range, in direct combat contact with supported units. It has to be coordinated with both the artillery and supported units. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 146 Comments »

F-35 reality check

Posted by Picard578 on July 16, 2015

CLAIM: F-35 can supercruise

Incorrect. F-35 can achieve and maintain speeds just above M 1 though usage of minimum afterburner. “Supercruise” claim can be discounted by comparing the F-35A with F-16A.

F-16A has a 40* wing sweep with a laminary wing profile designed for supersonic flight. Its engine has a frontal area of 6.082 cm2 while providing 64,9 kN dry (uninstalled) thrust, giving 10,67 N/cm2. F-16A also has wing loading of 338,5 kg/m2 at combat weight, span loading of 947,2 kg/m and TWR of 0,7 at combat weight and dry thrust.

F-35A has a 33* wing sweep with a supercritical wing profile designed for transonic flight. It also has frontal area about as large as the F-18s. Its engine has a frontal area of 10.715 cm2 while providing 124,5 kN dry thrust, giving 11,62 N/cm2. F-35A has wing loading of 427,9 kg/m2 at combat weight, span loading of 1.698 kg/m and TWR of 0,7 at combat weight and dry thrust. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in weapons | Tagged: , , , , , , | 16 Comments »

Are more expensive weapons automatically more capable

Posted by Picard578 on September 7, 2013

“I was asked my opinion about the F-35. It’s a waste of money. Far too expensive. Give me an F-15 E — less expensive, will do the job.”
General Chuck Yeager (ret) First Pilot to break the sound barrier.

“If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets that he has to watch, somebody a lot more simply equipped – say with a stone ax – will sneak up on him and bash his head in while he’s trying to read a vernier. ”
Robert A Heinlein
Tactical comparision

More expensive weapons are often seen as being automatically more capable. But that is not necessarily true, and here I will examine some examples of less costly weapons outperforming more expensive ones. Numerical comparision, while crucial in assessing the actual effect of weapon in war, will be ignored for purposes of the analysis.

Army

Historically

Going very back in the time, simple sling could – in good hands – be a better weapon than bow, arrow, crossbow or even early firearms. Weapon itself was inexpensive and could be made by anyone. While early sling projectiles were not very good at penetration, later on biconical or ovid projectiles were made from clay or metal which greatly improved aerodynamic and penetration characteristics. Sling projectiles preserved more kinetic energy until impact than arrows did, but as this was spread over wider area, they were not as good at penetration. What they lacked at penetration they made up for with brute force: Vegetius has stated that while neither slings or arrows could penetrate Roman armor, slings caused potentially fatal injuries even through armor. Slings were more accurate than bows, and in hands of skilled slinger, had greater range: Larry Bray achieved range of 437 meters, but believed that he could have surpassed 600 m mark with better sling and projectiles; ancient slingers, who trained with sling for life, may have been able to achieve ranges up to 700 meters. In fact, sling remained more dangerous than firearms at least until latter received barrel rifling, and potentially well until 1900s. What ultimately did the sling in was greater homogenization of Europe after ancient times: with cultures mixing, skilled slingers disappeared, and bow, a far easier weapon to master, took over; process later repeated itself with crossbow and firearms.

In World War II, Germans used wooden mines to prevent them from being picked up by metal detectors – it worked so well that they ended up being banned by Geneva Conventions. Heavy flak batteries proved useless, but cheaper small-calibre AAA emplacements, when concealed near possible targets, proved devastating to enemy aircraft, especially if aircraft in question were not as well armored as P-47.

In Vietnam, Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in weapons | Tagged: , , , | 30 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: