Farewell VF-103

[David Hingtgen]

We could always bring up the internal gun argument again... (sorry, sorry)

Anyways---question for the next few posts: What's the JSF's current/projected non-JDAM PGM capability? JDAM's are decent, but still inferior to laser-guided etc. Would it rely on other planes to designate for it? The main thing about the F-16 Block 60 is having every sensor/designator type that exists built-in. F-35 seems to lack a lot of stuff. Is is effectively JDAM-only? That's not accurate enough for "CNN war", where if you're off by 2 inches it'll be on the news...

PS---despite the fact that I argue about planes a lot, I do value discussion like this a lot. I learn more from arguments like this than books and magazines it seems. And sometimes I will make a point just to refresh my memory as to why it's (and I) am wrong...

[Nied]

The JSF is suppposed to have the ability to self designate for LGBs along with a full FLIR. There's a gizmo on the chin of all versions that is suppoed to have superior capabilies to the Sniper XR pods on the F-16E. I took a picture of it on the JSF mockup they had at the Andrews Air show this year, never got around to posting it though. I saw a set of specifications for it somewhere but for the life of me I can't remember where it was.

[Major Johnathan]

This whole debate is similar to the Abrams. There's a whole movement to get rid of the Abrams. Why? Because it's expensive, high maintance and weighs a ton, many tons in fact, so it's a pain in the ass to deploy. The thought is to replace it with light weight armor that can be flown into theater in greater numbers, ideally with wheeled vehicles since urban warfare is the order of the day. The Striker is the new toy for the Army and it was sent to Iraq to 'save the day' because it was made for urban warfare. Wheeled, fast, agile, great electronics, optics and very light, easy to transport.

But in reality, it's armor is tinfoil compared to the Abrams, it's main gun a pea shooter to the Abrams 120mm. One RPG or IED/Mine will do in a Stiker and the crew has big troubles. The Abrams on the other hand can shrug off all but the biggest IED/mines and only a 'golden BB' or torrent of many, many RPG's can disable an Abrams, the crew is VERY likely to survive any attack even if the tank is lost.

They wound up redeploying the Striker in more open terrain, cities are just too dangerous, too many places for an ambush. This of course defeats the great billing of the Striker. The Abrams on the other hand was predicted to be more of a liability, convential wisdon says tanks are bad choices for urban warfare(big,slow,akward and easy targets), the grunts on the gound disagree, when they get in trouble or need a tought nut cracked, the Abrams get's cheers when it arrives on scene. Strikers and even Bradleys just don't get the same reception.

Economically and logistically speaking, the Striker or Bradley are definately the way to go. To actually win a battle, you want the Abrams. I see similarities with F-14 Vs. F-18E/F debate. The F-18E/F is nice, but if you want to win in a fight, I like the F-14's chances a lot better. (At least until they make a worthy successor, and I agree it high time they find one.)

[Nied]

It's not quite the same. For one the Strikers sent into Iraq, like much of the equipment sent there, were sent without most of their armor (because "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up"). The Striker is vulnerable right now beacuse it's being sent out without critical components, namely armor. It would be like arguing that the SuperHornet isn't as good as the Tomcat because it didn't have engines installed in it.

Edited December 19, 2004 by Nied

[Zentrandude]

It's not quite the same. For one the Strikers sent into Iraq, like much of the equipment sent there, were sent without most of their armor (because "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up"). The Striker is vulnerable right now beacuse it's being sent out without critical components, namely armor. It would be like arguing that the SuperHornet isn't as good as the Tomcat because it didn't have engines installed in it.

I belive the lack of armor issue only applies to the Humvees and Supply Trucks.

[Coota0]

HARM and future SEAD missles are using passive guidance. So I kind of doubt you would need a active radar source to aim those things. Just as long as you know where they are or a JSTARs links you up.

If you already know where the SAMs are then you hit them with laser/GPS/Optical guided bombs, or cluster bombs (more dangerous) because it's cheaper than using HARMs. In order to find a mobile site that's been moved you have to put some aircraft in the air with HARMs on them so that the SAMs will turn on their radars and can be found.

Then there are those damned IR SAMs...all you can do is fly high, or fly real low and bypass them quick.

[Coota0]

*Internal* payload. A JSF using its many external hardpoints is non-stealthy, and thus has little reason to exist. Internal payload is like 2,700lbs. (Assuming 2x1,000lb JDAM +2 AMRAAM) Why even have JSF's on a carrier if you're going to use them for non-stealth attacks?

The idea behind the JSF is that you use the smaller stealyh payload for the first few days of combat while the combat area is very high threat. After the enemy air threat is gone (Day 1) and the majority of the Surface to air threat has been destoyed (Day2 and 3) then you fly high to avoid IR SAMs and load up the wing hardpoints for close air support and intradiction as the ground forces move in on your enemy.

[Zentrandude]

Then there are those damned IR SAMs...all you can do is fly high, or fly real low and bypass them quick.

Good thing for flares and those Laser Jammers they been devopeing for the airlines and im sure military will have em too. Funny that it almost exactly like the ir laser Jammer from the Escape velocity nova game.

[ewilen]

About the Stryker, I haven't been able to find anything either about them being inadequately armored for Iraq (Maj. Jonathan's point) OR about them not having the armor that they're supposed to (Nied's response). So if anyone can link to an actual story about this, I'd appreciate it.

I do see that a Stryker was ambushed recently with a roadside bomb and other weapons, resulting in injuries but no deaths.

[Nied]

I'm having trouble finding the news story I read last year, however if you look at Globalsecurity's entry on the Striker you'll see mention down at the bottom about planned anti RPG armor still being in development as of 2003 (when sttrikers were deployed to Iraq). The news article I read had the Strikers that deployed to Iraq being fited with a sort of cage that would detonate an RPG warhead before it struck the actual skin of the vehicle. It wan't nearly as effective as the actual armor they were supposed to have but it was better than the nothing they were sent there with.

[Noyhauser]

I think the comparason between M-1s and strykers completely different from the F-18 vs F-14.

#1 The stryker is intended for a completely different role than the M-1. It was NEVER envisaged as a replacement of the M-1, but rather it was to take over certain roles that the M-1 was unsuited for. The M-1 is realistically undeployable by airlift, While the Stryker can be carried by all transport aircraft. The Stryker is intended to be a high speed long range vehicle designed to break through gaps in an enemy line and enter into the back areas of an enemy line. The M-1 is a fuel guzzling monster that has limited range and deployability. Often the choice is not a Stryker vs an M-1, but between a Stryker and nothing at all, especially on long range patrol missions.

Moreover troops asked for the strykers, M-1s are quite immobile in City streets, have a limited turrent traverse... and is downright hazardous to its crew's health. The Depleted Uranium plates ARE poisonous (not radioactive) for its own crew's health. Moreover the M-1 are extremely difficult maintain in the desert. More often than not whole sections of them are sitting in maintenance sheds. The M-1 is good at what it is designed for... and nobody in their right minds would replace one with a stryker. But deploying a M-1 everywhere is ridiculous, a horrendous waste of cash, and it is unsuitable for several mission roles. The stryker was designed as a supplament to it, not a replacement.

So any more assertions you would like to make?

And as Ewilen said... the differences between the F-14 and Shornet are not very big, and the Super hornet beating it out in a lot of places.

[Fatalist]

Talk about straying off topic.

Sad.

Personally, I am sad to see the Cat go. Its a beautiful warbird. I loved seeing them fly over San Diego back in the day.

But like the saying goes..."All good things must come to an end".

[Gammera]

Must...... resist...... urge..... to... bring another...... super rehashed flogged to death with wilted coliflower by nubies ............topic.

will power tooo weak.....

I Have the answer lets up grade all of our F-14's into VF-1s!!!!!!!!!!

[Noyhauser]

uhhh... I've been talking about this topic since I got here. So its not exactly brought up by newbies. Feel free to contribute.

[Gammera]

uhhh... I've been talking about this topic since I got here. So its not exactly brought up by newbies. Feel free to contribute.

I did! Go back to page three... and other threads of the same subject.

Edited December 21, 2004 by Gammera

[USCOLMRNE]

Here is a tomcat fan website aboug the Jolly Rogers from their early WWII to modern days

http://www.almansur.com/jollyrogers/