British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/british-f-35bs-to-bring-vertical-landing-abilities-to-highways
331 comments
This is an issue I care deeply about as I believe effective dispersal is a useful conventional deterrent to conflict.
To add - this is a more trodden upon path than many realize. The RAF trained extensively on establishing dispersed airfields for the Harrier force. They dedicated a lot of resources to being able to conduct dispersed operations from modified fields (fields, not airfields) https://youtu.be/QOf1AAf1yqc.
The US Marine Corps’ F-35B community has limited experience with what I’d semi-austere forward arming/refueling points(FARPs).
F-35B landing at FARP. https://youtu.be/le4W1Pk-Dn8
There is enough here about the challenges of fast jets off of roadways and poor condition airfields. I’ll just add that a jet is only as capable as its ground crew, spares, available munitions and fuel stores, so getting those things to a remote strip and protecting them is a big challenge and resource drain. The UK armed forces are already stretched quite thin for personnel so how operable this concept is TBD.
People with an interest in dispersal should watch this video https://youtu.be/MNak9lB_q00 and read this wiki - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90. The nordics really expect much of their aviation infrastructure to be destroyed in a conventional conflict and plan accordingly.
To add - this is a more trodden upon path than many realize. The RAF trained extensively on establishing dispersed airfields for the Harrier force. They dedicated a lot of resources to being able to conduct dispersed operations from modified fields (fields, not airfields) https://youtu.be/QOf1AAf1yqc.
The US Marine Corps’ F-35B community has limited experience with what I’d semi-austere forward arming/refueling points(FARPs).
F-35B landing at FARP. https://youtu.be/le4W1Pk-Dn8
There is enough here about the challenges of fast jets off of roadways and poor condition airfields. I’ll just add that a jet is only as capable as its ground crew, spares, available munitions and fuel stores, so getting those things to a remote strip and protecting them is a big challenge and resource drain. The UK armed forces are already stretched quite thin for personnel so how operable this concept is TBD.
People with an interest in dispersal should watch this video https://youtu.be/MNak9lB_q00 and read this wiki - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90. The nordics really expect much of their aviation infrastructure to be destroyed in a conventional conflict and plan accordingly.
Notably, in the recent CSIS wargame of a Taiwan invasion, the US lost 90% of their aircraft on the ground. Even dispersing to civilian airports in Japan doesn't help much (Japan has plenty of airports but PLARF has plenty more missiles) and of course hugely complicates logistics. https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publi...
I'm inclined to agree, but am almost totally ignorant, would enjoy pointers to/reading critical takes on the role of dispersal. The reason I'm inclined to agree is that war is a worst case scenario, and very uncertain (bottom of worst could fall quickly) so it seems odd to prepare to fight war under ideal (large intact airfields) rather than very ugly circumstances. Perhaps the cost efficiency in peacetime of centralization allows (the US anyway) such an overwhelming advantage that the correct calculus is to maintain that advantage rather than prepare for the worst?
Here's another video talking a bit about the costs of dispersal, and costs basically being the reason for not doing it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-lcu2kBXQI
Here's another video talking a bit about the costs of dispersal, and costs basically being the reason for not doing it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-lcu2kBXQI
Maintenance and munitions. The F-35 needs 9 ground labor hours per flight hour. It's cheap and easy to add a flight apron next to a straight section of highway, but if you only have one maintenance depot then knocking that out will ground your entire fleet.
Setting up redundant hangars and staffing them with trained aircraft mechanics is way, way more expensive than just pouring some extra concrete. Stocking them with the missiles your F-35s are going to need to actually perform missions also requires staffing, perimeter security, hardened bunkers...
It can be done, and is probably a good idea. But it's not a "one easy trick makes your air force invulnerable"-style lifehack.
Setting up redundant hangars and staffing them with trained aircraft mechanics is way, way more expensive than just pouring some extra concrete. Stocking them with the missiles your F-35s are going to need to actually perform missions also requires staffing, perimeter security, hardened bunkers...
It can be done, and is probably a good idea. But it's not a "one easy trick makes your air force invulnerable"-style lifehack.
The perimeter security element is often overlooked. You’ve got a lot more very valuable assets to secure. In the European (particularly Nordic ) scenario it’s really not implausible that special operations teams could be dispatched to hunt dispersed aircraft on the ground. In addition, it’s a much wider area to offer short range air defense of.
I believe the targeting problem created by dispersal outweighs these downsides, but they’re real and have to be mitigated. That costs time, money and people.
I believe the targeting problem created by dispersal outweighs these downsides, but they’re real and have to be mitigated. That costs time, money and people.
Absolutely. Hardened aircraft shelters got a bad reputation after the first gulf war, but considering the tradeoffs, one might easily conclude one way forward is much, much more spread out airbases with many separate runways ringed by aircraft shelters, so that you can at least try some air defense rather than let the cruise missiles rain down unopposed. (If Patriot batteries are a billion dollars a pop, then that's rather contraindicated to do full integrated AD for every roadside apron, isn't it...)
Bas 90 had an extreme amount of dispersion because Sweden's threat model included nuclear weapon strikes with no way to retaliate. If you're a nuclear power and assume that nuclear attacks on military targets would automatically escalate to MAD, then you might feel better about doing a dozen megabases, rather than a gross highway airfields.
Bas 90 had an extreme amount of dispersion because Sweden's threat model included nuclear weapon strikes with no way to retaliate. If you're a nuclear power and assume that nuclear attacks on military targets would automatically escalate to MAD, then you might feel better about doing a dozen megabases, rather than a gross highway airfields.
Same was true for USSR but obviously way bigger numbers. Thats how Ukraine managed to keep jets flying after the runways were targeted.
Outback Australia has some dual-purpose sections of road too, but more for emergency medical flights!
Oil pipeline routing in those areas is really funny.
This is true in the US and Canada as well.
Crucially this is also true in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian Air Force has found a new clever way to keep using normal air bases. After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse.
The doctrine of always having air superiority in NATO (and thus not needing makeshift runways) is so far rather justified given the hilarious level of incompetence shown by the VKS. Although the RAF seems to be more anxious about it, they definitely know much more than me. We do need a lot more air defense though, it's clear that before the next NATO-Russia confrontation they will have a rich arsenal of flying trashcans like the Shahed, as well as some decent missiles.
The Ukrainian Air Force has found a new clever way to keep using normal air bases. After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse.
The doctrine of always having air superiority in NATO (and thus not needing makeshift runways) is so far rather justified given the hilarious level of incompetence shown by the VKS. Although the RAF seems to be more anxious about it, they definitely know much more than me. We do need a lot more air defense though, it's clear that before the next NATO-Russia confrontation they will have a rich arsenal of flying trashcans like the Shahed, as well as some decent missiles.
Boeing did a similar thing during WW2, and drew an entire city above a factory in Seattle. The article has some impressive pictures: https://99percentinvisible.org/article/prop-town-fake-roofto...
> After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse.
This sounds very interesting! Any sources?
This sounds very interesting! Any sources?
RUSI wrote about it, page 25 of this report:
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...
BTW, if you like reading longer reports on the technical/military aspects of this war then I can recommend RUSI. I haven't seen a better source so far. They release a report every now and then.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...
BTW, if you like reading longer reports on the technical/military aspects of this war then I can recommend RUSI. I haven't seen a better source so far. They release a report every now and then.
Relevant quote from the report (the entire report seems extremely worth reading):
A critical weakness of the Russian strike campaign was battle damage assessment. First, the Russian military appears to have presumed that if an action had been ordered and carried out then it had succeeded, unless there was direct evidence to the contrary. Evidence of success appears to have disproportionately relied on three data points: confirmation from pilots that they hit their target; confirmation from Russian satellites that a site showed damage; and confirmation from signals intelligence (SIGINT) that Ukrainians reported a strike and damage to their equipment. Russian satellite reconnaissance proved very limited, even though Russian survey space reconnaissance of Ukraine has been conducted since at least 2012, and detailed reconnaissance, in the interests of invasion planning, since mid-2021. A probable reason for this may be the insufficient number of satellites in the orbital grouping of the VKS and the overestimation of their technical capabilities. Indirect confirmation of this explanation is provided by the fact that the AFRF began buying additional satellite images of the territory of Ukraine and individual military facilities on the world market in April 2022. One of the visible failures of satellite intelligence is the inability to detect on time a significant volume of strategic railway movements by the UAF, which, in March 2022 amounted to three–four echelons per day.
The poor Russian battle damage assessment process made the Russian military highly vulnerable to deception, which has been consistent throughout the conflict. Early strikes on Ukrainian airfields, for example, destroyed many hangars. By photographing this damage and printing the resulting pattern on to sheets, it became possible to clear the rubble and erect covers for aircraft to return to the site, sheltering in positions that the Russians would confirm as destroyed. This led – somewhat amusingly – to the Russians debating whether Ukrainian fighter aircraft were operating from subterranean shelters at several sites. Repeated strikes on dummy air-defence positions also saw a considerable wastage of ammunition, while Ukrainian troops could confirm that sites were destroyed over the radio even when they were still functioning, causing Russian aircraft to ignore air-defence systems in their mission planning. The already-publicly reported use of dummy HIMARS (high mobility artillery rocket system) later in the war to lure Russian fires is indicative of the systematic use of deception to ensure survivability by the UAF, and it has proven widely effective.
The presumption of success caused the Russian military to take several unjustifiable risks in the disposition of its forces during the first 72 hours of the conflict. Aircraft did not fly with EW pods during the opening phase as they were not deemed necessary following the presumed success of the strike campaign. Similarly, Russian manoeuvre forces were not properly supported by air-defence units and Russian air-defence units were told to presume that aircraft were friendly. This enabled a significant number of ground-attack sorties by the Ukrainian Air Force, including using UAVs such as TB2, against Russian formations, even when they had attached air-defence units. Ukraine suffered aircraft losses in air-to-air engagements, however.
A critical weakness of the Russian strike campaign was battle damage assessment. First, the Russian military appears to have presumed that if an action had been ordered and carried out then it had succeeded, unless there was direct evidence to the contrary. Evidence of success appears to have disproportionately relied on three data points: confirmation from pilots that they hit their target; confirmation from Russian satellites that a site showed damage; and confirmation from signals intelligence (SIGINT) that Ukrainians reported a strike and damage to their equipment. Russian satellite reconnaissance proved very limited, even though Russian survey space reconnaissance of Ukraine has been conducted since at least 2012, and detailed reconnaissance, in the interests of invasion planning, since mid-2021. A probable reason for this may be the insufficient number of satellites in the orbital grouping of the VKS and the overestimation of their technical capabilities. Indirect confirmation of this explanation is provided by the fact that the AFRF began buying additional satellite images of the territory of Ukraine and individual military facilities on the world market in April 2022. One of the visible failures of satellite intelligence is the inability to detect on time a significant volume of strategic railway movements by the UAF, which, in March 2022 amounted to three–four echelons per day.
The poor Russian battle damage assessment process made the Russian military highly vulnerable to deception, which has been consistent throughout the conflict. Early strikes on Ukrainian airfields, for example, destroyed many hangars. By photographing this damage and printing the resulting pattern on to sheets, it became possible to clear the rubble and erect covers for aircraft to return to the site, sheltering in positions that the Russians would confirm as destroyed. This led – somewhat amusingly – to the Russians debating whether Ukrainian fighter aircraft were operating from subterranean shelters at several sites. Repeated strikes on dummy air-defence positions also saw a considerable wastage of ammunition, while Ukrainian troops could confirm that sites were destroyed over the radio even when they were still functioning, causing Russian aircraft to ignore air-defence systems in their mission planning. The already-publicly reported use of dummy HIMARS (high mobility artillery rocket system) later in the war to lure Russian fires is indicative of the systematic use of deception to ensure survivability by the UAF, and it has proven widely effective.
The presumption of success caused the Russian military to take several unjustifiable risks in the disposition of its forces during the first 72 hours of the conflict. Aircraft did not fly with EW pods during the opening phase as they were not deemed necessary following the presumed success of the strike campaign. Similarly, Russian manoeuvre forces were not properly supported by air-defence units and Russian air-defence units were told to presume that aircraft were friendly. This enabled a significant number of ground-attack sorties by the Ukrainian Air Force, including using UAVs such as TB2, against Russian formations, even when they had attached air-defence units. Ukraine suffered aircraft losses in air-to-air engagements, however.
I immensely respect Ukraine but a US-China war would involve the best technology this planet has to offer and the Chinese have been preparing for it since the 1970s.
Maybe, their ambitions are definitely that they stand toe to toe with the US.
However, the fact they are just now starting to issue body armor to their soldiers and have not had any real combat experience in the modern age might be difficult challenges to overcome.
It's a lot different to push around your effectively unarmed neighbors than the US, who has been in large scale military conflicts since the 40's. To put it in perspective, the US spends over 800 billion dollars per year on the military. It's more than the next 10 countries, combined.
However, the fact they are just now starting to issue body armor to their soldiers and have not had any real combat experience in the modern age might be difficult challenges to overcome.
It's a lot different to push around your effectively unarmed neighbors than the US, who has been in large scale military conflicts since the 40's. To put it in perspective, the US spends over 800 billion dollars per year on the military. It's more than the next 10 countries, combined.
The official figures on China's military budget are total lies. What they actually spend on a PPP basis is now comparable to the USA.
https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/
https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/
Hmm, well, if those are accurate numbers than the us spends more than the next 9 countries combined.
Still, the us spends more than 2.5x per year than China.
Still, the us spends more than 2.5x per year than China.
NATO is not involved with China directly. Some/many member countries probably will get involved if shit hits the fan, depending on why and how exactly it will happen, if it happens.
But yeah you're right, national and collective defense strategies should not rely too much on VKS' weaknesses, that's not the only potential problem.
But yeah you're right, national and collective defense strategies should not rely too much on VKS' weaknesses, that's not the only potential problem.
> This is true in the US
As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs.
[0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile-...
As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs.
[0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile-...
> urban legend
That's disappointing. It sounded so cool! The part of this story I recall is that overpasses were spaced widely enough to avoid interfering with airplanes should they need to find a landing spot.
That's disappointing. It sounded so cool! The part of this story I recall is that overpasses were spaced widely enough to avoid interfering with airplanes should they need to find a landing spot.
Bush planes in Alaska can use active highways. Literally merging with road vehicle traffic for takeoff and landing.
> Bush planes in Alaska can use active highways.
That's probably not a useful data point, as bush planes are massively different from warplanes. A Pilatus PC6 is one of the largest "bush planes" and at max weight, is 1/3 the weight of an empty F-18 and needs 1/5 as much runway to takeoff with no jet blast concerns
That's probably not a useful data point, as bush planes are massively different from warplanes. A Pilatus PC6 is one of the largest "bush planes" and at max weight, is 1/3 the weight of an empty F-18 and needs 1/5 as much runway to takeoff with no jet blast concerns
In general, the military connection to the interstate highway system is almost certainly overplayed. From what I've read, it's something Eisenhower wanted to do and the military aspect made it easier to sell to congress.
A major military aspect comes from a general logistics perspective. Eisenhower took part in a 1919 cross country motor convoy- it took 62 days to cross the United States, with many difficulties. That experience is regularly cited as a major influence on his desire to establish the interstate highways.
It’s not that they were built for the military, but the advantages to the military were also obvious.
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/...
It’s not that they were built for the military, but the advantages to the military were also obvious.
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/...
That's fair enough. I have no doubt that, given his background, Eisenhower understood the value of a large country having a good way to move people and equipment around efficiently--whether for explicit military purposes or otherwise.
Instead the government funds thousands of unprofitable municipal airports to ensure that we have airstrips everywhere in case we were ever invaded
Are airports supposed to be profitable, or are they there to provide a service? Should airports that are not profitable be shut down? Does the public good factor into that decision?
Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply
Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply
I can see the value in operating airports at a loss in truly remote areas. sometimes it's the only way to maintain connectivity to the rest of the world. for example there are communities in alaska that are literally not connected to the contiguous US by road or train.
but otherwise yes? I don't think airports like IAD should run at a loss. they are very expensive to operate and primarily serve commercial airlines. the gate fees and retail rents should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed.
but otherwise yes? I don't think airports like IAD should run at a loss. they are very expensive to operate and primarily serve commercial airlines. the gate fees and retail rents should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed.
> should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed.
Or restructured to be profitable. IAD is a good example of where there is clearly enough demand and example of similar scale airports being run effectively. So if they are running at big losses (no idea, not something I've researched) then that to me implies bad management (or poor political constraints) rather a fundamental business model problem.
Or restructured to be profitable. IAD is a good example of where there is clearly enough demand and example of similar scale airports being run effectively. So if they are running at big losses (no idea, not something I've researched) then that to me implies bad management (or poor political constraints) rather a fundamental business model problem.
Municipal airports are nothing like the large international airports you may be thinking of. Municipal airports have like two runways and are only used by tiny private planes, not commercial airliners.
The only effect on the "public good" is to serve a handful of rich hobbyist. And potentially as national defense infrastructure, which I guess is why the feds fund them.
The only effect on the "public good" is to serve a handful of rich hobbyist. And potentially as national defense infrastructure, which I guess is why the feds fund them.
In Colorado municipal airports serve more "public good" purposes. One purpose is for less rich (but still pretty rich) people to go skydiving. Another is to stage aircraft for fire fighting in places that are closer to the fires. That last one is important, not just for saving the houses of the rich people who build mansions in fire zones, but also to help save whole towns.
No.
If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit?
In all other cases, you are just taxing people who don't benefit from those airports to subsidize the few people who do benefit.
If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit?
In all other cases, you are just taxing people who don't benefit from those airports to subsidize the few people who do benefit.
No. Service to society is not always a money maker. Value does not imply profit.
Now, not every unprofitable service is worthy of government funding.
Now, not every unprofitable service is worthy of government funding.
What is an example of a service which provides a lot of value but is not/ could not be profitable?
There are public services we choose to run at a loss, like the postal service or public transit. These services definitely could raise their prices in order to turn a profit (they provide enough value that people would still pay the higher prices). We choose to run them at a loss as a sort of wealth redistribution program, where the taxes from the rich subsidize the cost of these services for the poor.
There are public services we choose to run at a loss, like the postal service or public transit. These services definitely could raise their prices in order to turn a profit (they provide enough value that people would still pay the higher prices). We choose to run them at a loss as a sort of wealth redistribution program, where the taxes from the rich subsidize the cost of these services for the poor.
If I'm ever convicted of a crime, I sure hope the courtroom where my trial takes place isn't considered to be "profitable".
If we ran the post office or certain public transit at a profit, they wouldn't be the services they are today. You admit this. Post office wouldn't run daily service 6 days a week. They wouldn't run last mile to millions of people. Public transit wouldn't serve unprofitable communities. So no, they couldn't operate the same way.
Hand-waving that away because it is wealth redistribution is invalid.
Profit is not a prerequisite of value.
Profit should not be the driving force of every mechanism in society.
Caveat, not every public service which costs money is able to cost too much. Rejecting the profit motive is not equal to rejecting a bounded budget for programs.
Hand-waving that away because it is wealth redistribution is invalid.
Profit is not a prerequisite of value.
Profit should not be the driving force of every mechanism in society.
Caveat, not every public service which costs money is able to cost too much. Rejecting the profit motive is not equal to rejecting a bounded budget for programs.
Running public services "at a loss" (= tax funded) is the entire premise of a government. Some as wealth redistribution schemes, but most of them because society as a whole is better off if we do so.
If we only put out fires if the property owner has paid their fire fighting fees the fire might uncontrollably spread to other properties, so we are better off just having a public fire fighting service. Every trucking company paying for their own armed escorts is much more expensive than taxes financing a police force that ensures safe travel. Transportation infrastructure, no matter if that's streets, subways or airports, promotes trade and efficient resource use by allowing people and resources to get to places more easily.
If we only put out fires if the property owner has paid their fire fighting fees the fire might uncontrollably spread to other properties, so we are better off just having a public fire fighting service. Every trucking company paying for their own armed escorts is much more expensive than taxes financing a police force that ensures safe travel. Transportation infrastructure, no matter if that's streets, subways or airports, promotes trade and efficient resource use by allowing people and resources to get to places more easily.
Public transport is not run at a loss as a form of wealth distribution, it's run at a loss because the impact on the economy/society via enabling people to move around more freely is not captured via ticket prices.
It's no different from building roads or sewage systems - you don't try to directly capture the building cost from the people using them because the higher order benefits from having a healthy, growing, functional society (both in the general wellbeing of the population, and in tax revenue) outweigh that.
It's no different from building roads or sewage systems - you don't try to directly capture the building cost from the people using them because the higher order benefits from having a healthy, growing, functional society (both in the general wellbeing of the population, and in tax revenue) outweigh that.
Transport adds value by allowing people and goods to move around with less friction. That value is realized by second/third/fourth order effects (bigger labour force available to businesses, money travelling around a wider network causing more price efficiency, improvements in production of goods in one area more effectively being utilized in other areas, all of these things resulting in more tax dollars as well etc etc etc).
These benefits are incredibly hard to quantify and likely don't even really directly/immediately affect the people using the transport. If the airport increased prices to try to capture that value in profit they would just be adding that friction back into the system and the benefits would disappear again.
These benefits are incredibly hard to quantify and likely don't even really directly/immediately affect the people using the transport. If the airport increased prices to try to capture that value in profit they would just be adding that friction back into the system and the benefits would disappear again.
> If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit?
Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)
Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)
why would you assume there are positive externalities though?
large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate.
smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is worth subsidizing.
the only exceptions I can think of are airfields in remote communities (Alaska, islands, etc), and strategic locations that are desirable to the military.
large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate.
smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is worth subsidizing.
the only exceptions I can think of are airfields in remote communities (Alaska, islands, etc), and strategic locations that are desirable to the military.
The fact that it's made it through a somewhat democratic process is plenty of reason to assume positive externalities in the very weak sense of noticing that you should be looking for them. Relying on the assumption for more than that would be silly, of course.
Firefighting.
Also many municipal airports serve as a beacon to help folks flying at night to get around.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome_beacon
Also many municipal airports serve as a beacon to help folks flying at night to get around.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodrome_beacon
The US trains for this but I'm not sure it's needed domestically. FAA funds local and regional airports - there are plenty of airstrips all over that could accommodate a fighter or a C130.
Highway landing and take-off on its own is useless. F35 requires extensive machinery to maintain, in needs proper airport and hangars. It is not possible to operate it somewhere from forest! And vertical landing/takeoff can not support any load, it can not even be fully fuelled!
In Czechia we are replacing Gripens that can operate from almost anywhere. It only needs a few hundred meters of road, and single truck to refuel and restock ammunition.
Our new F35 will only be able to operate from a single runway in entire country!
In Czechia we are replacing Gripens that can operate from almost anywhere. It only needs a few hundred meters of road, and single truck to refuel and restock ammunition.
Our new F35 will only be able to operate from a single runway in entire country!
It's vertical landing, not vertical take off. It's still a short rolling take off. I actually wouldn't be suprised to find they do a short rolling landing too (rather than go full hover, use the lift fan to allow them to land at lower than normal stall speed would be). They've tested the rolling landing on board the HMS QE
And yes, for full maintenance, you do need need a proper airport and hangars. But for a quick refuel/arm and launch, you don't need that much. It's a trade off in capabilities: do you want to have a highway strip launch capability, or do you want something that is much less likely to get shot down. It's doubtful that the F-35 will only be able to operate at a single runway, unless your country only has one runway. It should be capable of operating off nearly any concrete runway you have (highways are typically not constructed to the same standards as a runway).
And yes, for full maintenance, you do need need a proper airport and hangars. But for a quick refuel/arm and launch, you don't need that much. It's a trade off in capabilities: do you want to have a highway strip launch capability, or do you want something that is much less likely to get shot down. It's doubtful that the F-35 will only be able to operate at a single runway, unless your country only has one runway. It should be capable of operating off nearly any concrete runway you have (highways are typically not constructed to the same standards as a runway).
Here’s a video showing STOVL(Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing): https://youtu.be/hO5mZxaiyUQ. The distance it needs to take off is incredibly short, should work on any short straight road with enough clearance on both sides. It does need to come slow crawl engage STOVL landing.
For some context, that F-35B took off with only 600ft of runway. A Cessna 172 can take off with as little as 800ft meaning you really don't need much for the F-35B. You can find this airstrip on Google maps when searching Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, it's the one out in the desert. It looks to be abandoned now but the runway markings in the video are still visible.
From what I know, we only have single military airport capable of supporting F-35. Fully loaded F35 needs 2.5 km of high quality concrete. It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle!
There are also civilian airports, but we would propably run out of those very soon. And using civilian infrastructure for military purposes (like bombing foreign country) would not be politically very digestible!
There are also civilian airports, but we would propably run out of those very soon. And using civilian infrastructure for military purposes (like bombing foreign country) would not be politically very digestible!
>It also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating. There is no "quick refual/arm" with stealth, it is more like operating Space Shuttle!
I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
Difficult, no. But it does require different and new support mechanisms for long term use (eg not a temporary site). A lot of the controversy in Canada with our F-35 purchase is that we're going to have to completely overhaul our military airports with new maintenance and storage hangars, though honestly we didn't keep them as up to date as we should have.
That probably would have happened with any new aircraft that was purchased.
Some of overhaul is buying and installing all the new tools and support systems, etc..
Some of overhaul is buying and installing all the new tools and support systems, etc..
Right now that is not verifiable. It is a clasiffied information, only supported by claims from manufacturer. And maintaince cost is already dispuded at court in Switzerland.
>It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplanes we had could take of from grassy fields!
>It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplanes we had could take of from grassy fields!
And their circle of hit probability with preprogrammed missiles is misured in hundreds meters instead of a handful. The war for which they were built never materialised, and their performances now largely obsolete.
And who's going to sell you replacement parts anyway if your principal adversary is also your plane supplier? You want suppliers that don't threaten to nuke you every other week.
Soviet planes came at a much higher cost...
And who's going to sell you replacement parts anyway if your principal adversary is also your plane supplier? You want suppliers that don't threaten to nuke you every other week.
Soviet planes came at a much higher cost...
I get your point. But:
- right now we have fighters from Sweden (not Soviet design obviously)
- Soviet planes came with technical plans, we would be probably capable to fix them by our selves to huge extend. Ukraine maintained their Soviet planes for 10 years during war. Also we manufactured some airplanes ourself, and even today Czechia produces fighter jets.
- Many countries produces Soviet derived planes and spare parts. Ukraine, India, China.. Half of world operates those, and there is a huge market.
- For Slovakia (and other NATO countries) that operate Migs, Russia was actually supplying spare until very recently. They sabotaged spare parts AFTER it was announced that Migs were going to be send to Ukraine, which was against the support contract.
- right now we have fighters from Sweden (not Soviet design obviously)
- Soviet planes came with technical plans, we would be probably capable to fix them by our selves to huge extend. Ukraine maintained their Soviet planes for 10 years during war. Also we manufactured some airplanes ourself, and even today Czechia produces fighter jets.
- Many countries produces Soviet derived planes and spare parts. Ukraine, India, China.. Half of world operates those, and there is a huge market.
- For Slovakia (and other NATO countries) that operate Migs, Russia was actually supplying spare until very recently. They sabotaged spare parts AFTER it was announced that Migs were going to be send to Ukraine, which was against the support contract.
Calling the L39 a jet fighter is a bit of a stretch. It's a trainer that can be armed and used to intercept general aviation aircraft.
If F35 gets grounded again for some software error, or virtual helmet reality problem, that will be our only air defense :(
At least you guys have a backup. If the Eurofighter gets grounded Austria has no airforce, because we retired the Saab 105 without buying L39s or Grippens as replacement.
Honestly, I would just prefer good S300 system. At Ukraine it covered sky for almost a year. Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
S300 is only good against old jets, not against modern stealth jets such as the F-35. Modern western SAM systems such as PATRIOT and NASAMS are obviously much more capable.
> Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
No they aren't. Why do you think Ukraine is asking for F-16s. You can deny air superiority to the enemies with good air defense, but not establish it for yourself.
> Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
No they aren't. Why do you think Ukraine is asking for F-16s. You can deny air superiority to the enemies with good air defense, but not establish it for yourself.
>Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
Nobody in Ukraine would agree with this. For keeping Russian fighters out of your airspace, sure, ground based air defense is great. For taking your territory back, it cannot substitute for jet fighters.
Nobody in Ukraine would agree with this. For keeping Russian fighters out of your airspace, sure, ground based air defense is great. For taking your territory back, it cannot substitute for jet fighters.
>Cost for operating F35 is astronomical.
It's high but considering the expected number of flight hours the airframe can take, it's on par or not significantly worse than others.
For example the Eurofighter is a $120 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, whereas the F-35 is an $85 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 8,000 hours. Even with higher maintenance costs the tradeoff is still pretty favorable.
Compare that to the Gripen E which is cheap to operate, but still costs $85 million, isn't stealth, and is less capable in many respects.
It's high but considering the expected number of flight hours the airframe can take, it's on par or not significantly worse than others.
For example the Eurofighter is a $120 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, whereas the F-35 is an $85 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 8,000 hours. Even with higher maintenance costs the tradeoff is still pretty favorable.
Compare that to the Gripen E which is cheap to operate, but still costs $85 million, isn't stealth, and is less capable in many respects.
What's your source for "it also needs extensive overhaul after every flight to maintain stealth coating"?
Different stealth airplanes. Some documentaries that celebrate Raptor and F35 as technical marvel (highly complex). I have not really observed any maintenance difference or break throughout between F22 and F35.
And nobody really provided any solid numbers. If numbers are good, it would be easy to prove.
There is a lawsuit going in Switzerland. Swiss do not believe official maintenance cost.
Other countries (Japan and South Korea) have stealth program that has similar issues. Some disagreements with F35. South Korea fighter should cost 30% of F35 maintenance. But that goes into spare parts and features, not coating...
And frankly Russian program ran into a lot of troubles and cost overruns with stealth fighters. I believe Russians have better science and technical knowledge to deliver such airplane cheaply (without software integration). And they did not made any breakthrough that would magically reduce maintenance costs.
And nobody really provided any solid numbers. If numbers are good, it would be easy to prove.
There is a lawsuit going in Switzerland. Swiss do not believe official maintenance cost.
Other countries (Japan and South Korea) have stealth program that has similar issues. Some disagreements with F35. South Korea fighter should cost 30% of F35 maintenance. But that goes into spare parts and features, not coating...
And frankly Russian program ran into a lot of troubles and cost overruns with stealth fighters. I believe Russians have better science and technical knowledge to deliver such airplane cheaply (without software integration). And they did not made any breakthrough that would magically reduce maintenance costs.
So you don't have any evidence (solid or otherwise) that backs up your claim about the F-35 requiring a "complete overhaul" after each flight. Do we even know where the maintenance costs go to?
I also fail to see how the Russians are in a better position to build a stealth plane (cheaply or otherwise) when historically they've always been behind the US in that regard.
Anyway, opinions aside, big claims should be backed up with evidence and I'm not seeing anything that supports the idea that the F-35 needs that level of maintenance.
I also fail to see how the Russians are in a better position to build a stealth plane (cheaply or otherwise) when historically they've always been behind the US in that regard.
Anyway, opinions aside, big claims should be backed up with evidence and I'm not seeing anything that supports the idea that the F-35 needs that level of maintenance.
I wrote "extensive overhaul". I guess better wording would be "extensive inspection and coating overhaul". Far from "quick refuel/arm and launch" original post wrote.
F-35 has internal bomb bays, and those have to be opened and closed to add bombs. Those have to be resealed to maintain stealth. It has polymer based coating, how that stuff survives transsonic speeds with friction and heat?
F-22 maintenance cost was quoted at $72000 per flight hour (10 years ago). Stealth used as main cause. Is F-35 somehow different or cheaper?
Russians do not have cost overruns and technical feature creep, the way US does. Go ask on military forums. Problem are finances, not science.
Anyway, I do not believe claim that F-35 needs extensive and expensive maitenance is somehow extraordinary. "Overhaul" of stealth coat cold be some spray on stuff and inspection.
F-35 has a long track of cost overruns and proper maintenance cost is yet unknown.
F-35 has internal bomb bays, and those have to be opened and closed to add bombs. Those have to be resealed to maintain stealth. It has polymer based coating, how that stuff survives transsonic speeds with friction and heat?
F-22 maintenance cost was quoted at $72000 per flight hour (10 years ago). Stealth used as main cause. Is F-35 somehow different or cheaper?
Russians do not have cost overruns and technical feature creep, the way US does. Go ask on military forums. Problem are finances, not science.
Anyway, I do not believe claim that F-35 needs extensive and expensive maitenance is somehow extraordinary. "Overhaul" of stealth coat cold be some spray on stuff and inspection.
F-35 has a long track of cost overruns and proper maintenance cost is yet unknown.
While attempting to quote your post, I ended up quoting your quote of another comment, hence the "complete overhaul", not "extensive overhaul". My bad.
You're doing a lot of guesswork to reach your conclusions. You have no idea which parts of the F-22 are more fragile and require frequent changes or if the F-35 uses the same materials as the F-22. You're assuming that flaws from the F-22 haven't been fixed for the F-35. We have no idea if there's a problem with the F-35's internal bays, but you assume they need fixing before flying again. And to use your example, I'm not sure if spraying some foam can be consider "extensive overhaul".
You have conjecture, but no evidence, which is a problem as we can reach many conclusions that way. The maintenance costs for example... where you see evidence of a flawed plane, someone else sees evidence of corruption. Everyone's guessing and guessing isn't enough to change my mind.
Regarding Russia's capabilities, historically every country has been better at certain things. The Soviet Union created good SAMs and radars, but they've never been known for having the best computer chips or best stealth. It has nothing to do with feature creep, it's just that some are better than others at some things.
Military forums do a lot of guessing and assuming, which can make it a good echo chamber. Even people in the military have no idea what's being worked on at Skunk Works or the Chinese or Russian equivalent.
You're doing a lot of guesswork to reach your conclusions. You have no idea which parts of the F-22 are more fragile and require frequent changes or if the F-35 uses the same materials as the F-22. You're assuming that flaws from the F-22 haven't been fixed for the F-35. We have no idea if there's a problem with the F-35's internal bays, but you assume they need fixing before flying again. And to use your example, I'm not sure if spraying some foam can be consider "extensive overhaul".
You have conjecture, but no evidence, which is a problem as we can reach many conclusions that way. The maintenance costs for example... where you see evidence of a flawed plane, someone else sees evidence of corruption. Everyone's guessing and guessing isn't enough to change my mind.
Regarding Russia's capabilities, historically every country has been better at certain things. The Soviet Union created good SAMs and radars, but they've never been known for having the best computer chips or best stealth. It has nothing to do with feature creep, it's just that some are better than others at some things.
Military forums do a lot of guessing and assuming, which can make it a good echo chamber. Even people in the military have no idea what's being worked on at Skunk Works or the Chinese or Russian equivalent.
Here is the quote you want:
For this reason, the aircraft exterior coating, panels, seams, are inspected after each flight, to look for anything that might affect the jet's stealthiness, identifying any damage or scratches. Removing sand particles and dirt that settle on the aircraft surfaces and may turn into abrasions of the coating.
https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-airmen-explain-the-c...
For this reason, the aircraft exterior coating, panels, seams, are inspected after each flight, to look for anything that might affect the jet's stealthiness, identifying any damage or scratches. Removing sand particles and dirt that settle on the aircraft surfaces and may turn into abrasions of the coating.
https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-airmen-explain-the-c...
So you have to inspect the plane to make sure that stealth isn't compromised. How long does an inspection take? How often do they have to fix scratches?
The only long maintenance mentioned there is the washing of the plane every 3 months. It takes them 2 days by hand (even though some do it with a machine?) and this is mostly to maintain stealth.
Maybe I have a different definition of what "extensive" means, but this doesn't sound like "extensive overhaul after every flight".
I'll leave the discussion after this comment. We're just guessing here and going nowhere.
The only long maintenance mentioned there is the washing of the plane every 3 months. It takes them 2 days by hand (even though some do it with a machine?) and this is mostly to maintain stealth.
Maybe I have a different definition of what "extensive" means, but this doesn't sound like "extensive overhaul after every flight".
I'll leave the discussion after this comment. We're just guessing here and going nowhere.
Inspection != overhaul.
There's no phenomenon that causes the F-35 to magically lose its stealth coating at the end of exactly one flight. You can obviously delay maintenance for a few flights just fine.
I'm not so sure, the US at one point did talk about how if the F35 wasn't kept in climate controlled hangars then its stealth abilities would be negated rapidly.
Has that ever been confirmed? Because some variants operate from carriers and I'd be surprised if they have special hangars inside.
It does look like they develop a sort of "rust" through exposure to sea air [0], though what effect that has on low-observability remains to be seen.
0: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar...
0: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar...
You are thinking of the F-22 or perhaps the B-2. The stealth coatings on those are a lot more fragile.
I'm absolutely not, because I remember the argument was part of 'factor in the cost of improving hangars to be climate controlled when considering the purchase cost of the F35 from the US', in particular, I think it was when the canadian purchase of the F35 was being discussed.
Since the F22 and B2 are not exported at all, not even to canada, it cannot possibly have been a factor in purchasing either of those.
Since the F22 and B2 are not exported at all, not even to canada, it cannot possibly have been a factor in purchasing either of those.
A Boeing 787 needs 2.8km of high-quality concrete for a runway. A F-35 is known to have low maintenance stealth coatings, so you don't need extensive overhaul every flight. If you're fighting other countries from Czechia, the most likely countries to fight are either Russia, or it's minion Belarus. In which case you're probably not worrying about the politics of using civilian infrastructure.
Or you are part of a NATO operation against Serbia. Mentioning it, because the conflict in Kosovo is not resolved yet.
Or Hungary, it has far right government sympathetic to Russia. And they may get kicked out of EU any time soon. Also Slovakia and Poland are wobling... And Ukraine might get conquered by Russians.
35 years ago we would fight Germany. F-35 are supposed to last until 2050!
35 years ago we would fight Germany. F-35 are supposed to last until 2050!
The chance of Hungary, Slovakia or Poland fighting with the West is very, very close to zero.
(weird thing to say since these countries are part of the global west / NATO).
Besides that, I don't really believe that Orbán is sympathetic to Russia, he's just using the situation for his own benefit.
(weird thing to say since these countries are part of the global west / NATO).
Besides that, I don't really believe that Orbán is sympathetic to Russia, he's just using the situation for his own benefit.
There is no mechanism to kick Hungary out of the EU. The most that the EU can realistically do is suspend some funding.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/04/08/member-states-...
There is zero chance that Russia will be able to conquer the rest of Ukraine. Russia might be able to retain the currently occupied areas but their capability to conduct major new offensive operations is essentially gone and will take years to rebuild.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/04/08/member-states-...
There is zero chance that Russia will be able to conquer the rest of Ukraine. Russia might be able to retain the currently occupied areas but their capability to conduct major new offensive operations is essentially gone and will take years to rebuild.
The EU can freeze Hungary's membership if the polls were not stopping it.
Do you expect Serbia to be able to conduct air strikes against Czechia? Last I looked at the map, there's at least two other countries in the way, at least one of which is a NATO member.
Last time Serbia attempted to commit literal genocide, for the second time in less than a decade, for NATO to get involved. Do you think they'll start mass murders again?
What I know is that serbians who were assigned to northern Kosovo do not recognize the authority of Prishtina. This is still a major issue between Serbia and Kosovo and it is a regular reason for increased tension between the two. More than anything else, the perspective for EU membership keeps the tensions down, but do not expect that Serbia will disregard the problem just because.
Yes, there are border tensions, I'm well aware. Stupid things like car registration numbers. But thankfully, it's nowhere near actual mass murders of civilians, so I don't see any reason for NATO getting involved.
Well we did have WW2 only 20 years after WW1...
Think about it this way, if the F35 needed an extensive overhaul after each flight, there's no way it'd be suitable for the harsh environment of carrier operations.
That's what people were complaining about in Poland in 00s when we bought F-16 in addition to our MiG-29.
That the airplanes will be hard to maintain, aren't as rugged, can't handle street landing and improvised conditions. There was a huge scandal because one of the F-16 was flown from USA to Poland and did emergency landing on the way because of some minor technical issue.
20 years later and we lost two MiG-29 to bad maintenance and no F-16.
That the airplanes will be hard to maintain, aren't as rugged, can't handle street landing and improvised conditions. There was a huge scandal because one of the F-16 was flown from USA to Poland and did emergency landing on the way because of some minor technical issue.
20 years later and we lost two MiG-29 to bad maintenance and no F-16.
That's because the F-16s might be in (and even 'owned by') Poland, but they're for the defense of the US. We're not going to let them fall apart.
No idea where Poland got that idea about F-16s as they have a reputation for being a reliable and robust fighter even before Poland purchased the planes, unlike the MiG-29 which is a maintenance queen (particularly the engines) and has a reputation for being a mediocre plane whose career mainly consists of being shot of out of the sky.
There was a competition between F-16 and Grippen :)
One of the coolest things about the Gripen is the support infra. Even while in the fancy hangers, all support equipment is in 20 foot containers. This makes it very mobile when the fancy runway gets a few holes put into it. Also, only one professional soldier and a few conscripts can service the jet, all while standing on the ground, with mostly automotive style tools.
The efficiency of turnaround is something that is incomparable to all other fast jet systems of which I am aware.
The most informed analyst on this matter appears to be Justin Bronk [0]
If I was an F-35 buyer, I would also buy some more Gripen-C if at all possible. That should be the "High/Low" mix in 2023 and beyond.
If I was king of "The West," I would have had sent all available Gripens to Ukraine months ago.
[0] https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/ukraines-t...
[oops, around the Economist paywall] https://archive.is/gOKqZ
The efficiency of turnaround is something that is incomparable to all other fast jet systems of which I am aware.
The most informed analyst on this matter appears to be Justin Bronk [0]
If I was an F-35 buyer, I would also buy some more Gripen-C if at all possible. That should be the "High/Low" mix in 2023 and beyond.
If I was king of "The West," I would have had sent all available Gripens to Ukraine months ago.
[0] https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/ukraines-t...
[oops, around the Economist paywall] https://archive.is/gOKqZ
It still saves you on cost and space to host backup airstrips in case your country enter at war if you can share part of it with civil use.
Those motorway strips were all over the place in Geany during the Cold War. Most, if not all, got built back since. The idea of operating modern milizary aircraft from ad-hoc and improbvised airfields is nothing new. Easier to do with s/vtols so, added bonus for aircraft being carrier rated.
In Czechia we
Never any seen any Čech actually use that silly term...
Never any seen any Čech actually use that silly term...
"FTA:
they would involve placing aluminum AM-2 mats along a strip of highway, up to 1,500 feet long. This will be sufficient for the stealth jets to carry out short takeoffs and vertical landings while protecting the road beneath them."
"AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles coated with a epoxy nonskid material, available in both 6 and 12 foot lengths, and are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways, taxiways, parking and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance. Thirty ISO containers can be constructed to form a 1,500 square foot vertical, short landing and take off airfield and can accommodate up to a total of eleven CH53, UH1, AH1 and AV8B aircraft. " [1]
I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines..
[1] http://www.cassholdings.com/AM2.htm
"AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles coated with a epoxy nonskid material, available in both 6 and 12 foot lengths, and are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways, taxiways, parking and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance. Thirty ISO containers can be constructed to form a 1,500 square foot vertical, short landing and take off airfield and can accommodate up to a total of eleven CH53, UH1, AH1 and AV8B aircraft. " [1]
I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines..
[1] http://www.cassholdings.com/AM2.htm
> "FTA: they would involve placing aluminum AM-2 mats along a strip of highway, up to 1,500 feet long. This will be sufficient for the stealth jets to carry out short takeoffs and vertical landings while protecting the road beneath them."
They did this before as part of an airshow demo. The Royal Engineers (Army co-operation!) had built pads at RAF Fairford for RIAT then the F-35B flew in, engaged STOVL mode (i.e. lift fan door open, rear engine nozzle pointed down etc.) and landed vertically on it then took off again.
Can't remember what year it was; Google suggests the MoD released PR saying they had done the same thing at Marham in 2018 but it's possible the demo was by a USMC F-35B.
They did this before as part of an airshow demo. The Royal Engineers (Army co-operation!) had built pads at RAF Fairford for RIAT then the F-35B flew in, engaged STOVL mode (i.e. lift fan door open, rear engine nozzle pointed down etc.) and landed vertically on it then took off again.
Can't remember what year it was; Google suggests the MoD released PR saying they had done the same thing at Marham in 2018 but it's possible the demo was by a USMC F-35B.
I'm curious how long it takes / how many people / what special equipment or vehicles were required to set up these types of semi-improvised runways.
Interesting, here is a picture with a bit more detail:
https://ascelibrary.org/cms/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.00016...
https://ascelibrary.org/cms/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.00016...
MT.1943-5533.0001620/asset/f09948ff-dffd-43f8-ae43-63bd402d98c7/assets/images/large/figure1.jpg){kind=link}
> I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines..
They would send out personal to remove FOD (foreign object debris) before any operations and before laying those mats, I assume.
They would send out personal to remove FOD (foreign object debris) before any operations and before laying those mats, I assume.
Just some musing on the logistics and difficulties etc. of theoretical "distributed" highway F-35b operations..
[Numbers found by google search :_) ]
30 ISO containers for just the runway, = 30+ vehicles, + munitions, spare parts, maintenance personnel, that computerized logistics thing - ODIN/ALIS, food and water, security for the personnel, generators to power all the computers to support the aircraft, . would there need to be SAM support? anti-drone support?
Fuel would seem to be a real issue especially - an upgraded refuelling tanker-truck holds ~20k litres, and an F-35b can take ~10k litres I think. One refuelling tanker-truck = two air sorties.
[Numbers found by google search :_) ]
30 ISO containers for just the runway, = 30+ vehicles, + munitions, spare parts, maintenance personnel, that computerized logistics thing - ODIN/ALIS, food and water, security for the personnel, generators to power all the computers to support the aircraft, . would there need to be SAM support? anti-drone support?
Fuel would seem to be a real issue especially - an upgraded refuelling tanker-truck holds ~20k litres, and an F-35b can take ~10k litres I think. One refuelling tanker-truck = two air sorties.
I’m sure Finland’s current F/A-18s also need tons of support infrastructure if you go by ~the book~a google search. That hasn’t stopped us from developing and drilling the capacity to routinely operate them from these highway bases with much lighter logistics if need be. As stated in the article, the RAF is coming to Finland to learn and conduct tests. And because we’re in the process of replacing the Hornets with (non-B) F-35s, the experiments will benefit us as well.
[deleted]
A lot of the Nordic strips are only semi-distributed and near a central logistics hub. This lends itself to caching. There is definitely a tradeoff in how dispersed one can be before they are completely expeditionary vs. simply dispersed. It’s a continuum.
I think this is one of those options you use after some of your airfields have been rendered inoperable. Then you transition the remaining personnel to your highways with a stack of containers from a random storage location.
they can refuel in the air...
https://www.boeing.com/defense/kc-46a-pegasus-tanker/
https://www.boeing.com/defense/kc-46a-pegasus-tanker/
The "FOD Plod"
I can’t help but think it must be about protecting the aircraft rather than protecting the surface, as in ukraine roads are commonly built out of reinforced concrete slabs, and somewhat less commonly, but still frequently, they are built to take the weight of tanks, and are wide and straight enough to accommodate even large aircraft - there’s a strip of highway north of Mariupol that was originally built to accommodate strategic bombers.
The other thing that they would do is to even out the surface - decades of frost heave has left said concrete slabs pretty uneven, even in a car, never mind a jet, landing.
The other thing that they would do is to even out the surface - decades of frost heave has left said concrete slabs pretty uneven, even in a car, never mind a jet, landing.
It's really about the surface, which would be quickly destroyed by jet exhaust.
One of the impulses for changing surfacing methods for runways in Soviet Union was early jets ripping asphalt off the surface, for example, though later planes had higher-mounted exhausts that caused less problems.
As for road landing in Ukraine (and other Warsaw Pact countries, and Sweden), it's a mix of special road segments and special aircraft design (for example, consider MiG-29 with its intake shields that close when it's on the ground, and sturdier landing gear on many aircraft)
One of the impulses for changing surfacing methods for runways in Soviet Union was early jets ripping asphalt off the surface, for example, though later planes had higher-mounted exhausts that caused less problems.
As for road landing in Ukraine (and other Warsaw Pact countries, and Sweden), it's a mix of special road segments and special aircraft design (for example, consider MiG-29 with its intake shields that close when it's on the ground, and sturdier landing gear on many aircraft)
For a video example, here's a de Havilland Vampire destroying a runway on takeoff at an airshow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX3_mQZ4gY8
Is concrete used much in Europe? I’d think asphalt is a much more common highway surface material.
In the UK concrete has mainly been superseded by asphalt but there are one or two hold-outs. The M3 motorway (which heads from London down to Winchester / Southampton) has a long (ten miles?) concrete stretch which I drove along every day for years, although this is the exception that proves the rule. The road was noticeably more noisy / rumbly than others.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/concrete-roads/ 400 miles, apparently. But much less common outside of the east of england.
Concrete is also commonly used on heavy industrial estates - if they've got hundreds of 40 tonne lorries making sharp turns every day, they need the durability.
Concrete is also commonly used on heavy industrial estates - if they've got hundreds of 40 tonne lorries making sharp turns every day, they need the durability.
Probably depends on climate. Asphalt handles freezing temperatures much better.
A lot of Warsaw pact countries, yes, and in Ukraine it was still common a decade ago when last I was there.
Well protecting the surface protects the aircraft - the exhaust from the F-35B version is so hot it melts the concrete and could kick of bits of debris.
Sorry to bother you on a random comment, but is your airship thing still current?
Yes. As with most things it’s taking time to get things moving - I’m still raising an initial round of funding, and am at the “I will if they will” on several counts stage, and am working with a local council to get my hands on a large chunk of industrial park on a grant. Not far off the target, and a few potential investors yet to approach.
It’s going to take a while to go anywhere, but in the meantime I’m working with a couple of aerospace engineer friends/family on solidifying the concept. If nothing else I’m having fun figuring out how to make something the size of a skyscraper fly with next to no energy expenditure.
It’s going to take a while to go anywhere, but in the meantime I’m working with a couple of aerospace engineer friends/family on solidifying the concept. If nothing else I’m having fun figuring out how to make something the size of a skyscraper fly with next to no energy expenditure.
> AM-2 Aluminum Matting, Portable Aircraft Arresting Gear and Marking (lighting) Systems. AM-2 matting is the base upon which the entire EAF system rests.
> AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles ...
So, are they aluminum or are they steel? Or some structure involving both?
> AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles ...
So, are they aluminum or are they steel? Or some structure involving both?
The headline says vertical but this describes short takeoff on a well prepared surface.
I wonder if the F35B’s thrust would rip up a highway like SpaceX’s first starship launch.
https://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-co...
I wonder if the F35B’s thrust would rip up a highway like SpaceX’s first starship launch.
https://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-co...
If you ever been to Xiamen (city close to Taiwan across the ocean in China), the highways near the coast have long stretches of straight with extremely low side barriers. I wouldn’t be surprised if these highways were designed specifically to land aircrafts during times of need.
The F-35 obviously needs more preparation so they're really going to do it first with Typhoons and those are cool and potent aircraft even if they're not completely "Made in the USA (TM)".
There's an internal BAE project to give them updatable computers which can be ripped out and replaced every few years. Like the Gripen the idea is to separate the flight critical software, which needs lots of certification, from everything else which can then be updated much more easily and rapidly.
They've also been flight testing a radar that can do electronic warfare as well as its normal job and the Typhoon, like the Gripen and Rafale carries the Meteor BVRAAM which is exceptionally good because it has a long range and a lot of energy to maneuver at the point where its nearing its target.
There's an internal BAE project to give them updatable computers which can be ripped out and replaced every few years. Like the Gripen the idea is to separate the flight critical software, which needs lots of certification, from everything else which can then be updated much more easily and rapidly.
They've also been flight testing a radar that can do electronic warfare as well as its normal job and the Typhoon, like the Gripen and Rafale carries the Meteor BVRAAM which is exceptionally good because it has a long range and a lot of energy to maneuver at the point where its nearing its target.
Out of curiosity, in a fighter jet, what software ISN'T flight critical? Doesn't it all work together?
Some of the software is mission critical but not flight critical. If your targeting pod is down, it'll be harder to see the ground target or visually ID aircraft from afar, but there is no safety issue to the plane.
For example the aircraft is unstable by design and software keeps it responding and making changes N times a second (IIRC 40times/sec or something like that) without which it might crash - so that system would be one you don't want to change frequently.
The Typhoon has a vertical landing variant?
The article is about landing on roads, not landing vertically.
Yeah cool, and can the support necessary to keep an F-35 active be performed on a road?
The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind. The F-35? I doubt it.
I'm sure on paper someone will write and another one will approve, but in reality and in a real war scenario I have serious reservations.
The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind. The F-35? I doubt it.
I'm sure on paper someone will write and another one will approve, but in reality and in a real war scenario I have serious reservations.
Ukraine has shown that when your airspace and airstrips are contested, the only real answer is limited CAS where you fly in low, drop your load from as far away as possible, then pop flares and head back. A plane that is highly survivable and resistant to MANPADS is going to be superior.
For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.
For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.
The A-10 was designed for an all-out conventional war with the Warsaw Pact. It was never considered survivable even then; plans assumed that almost all would be destroyed in the first few days of the conflict and that was considered acceptable.
A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.
A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.
The A-10 is too old at this point and I really doubt anyone is going to make more. The Sky Warden has better electronic systems but who knows if that's actually going to be acquired. The best tactic now is to fly high enough to avoid laser targeting from the ground and avoid radar targeting with stealth.
...No.
That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km.
If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else.
It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.
That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km.
If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else.
It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.
To an non-expert like me the Gripen just seems so well-suited for Ukraine's Air Force in this conflict - relatively inexpensive, can land/operate in tougher conditions, can be serviced nearby (Czechia), outfitted to handle Western/NATO missile tech. I wonder what caused them to push so hard for F-16 instead.
Sweden was publicly clear they weren't going to make the Gripen available to Ukraine, the planes exist in small enough quantities that some new manufacturing would need to happen in order for any of its operators to swap their existing inventory out and give it to Ukraine (not impossible in the long run since there is a new variant that some countries might want to acquire someday, but not happening in the short term), and - this is the big one - there are roughly twenty times as many F-16s in service worldwide as there are Gripens.
Everything that's commonly said about the Gripen performing admirably in rugged conditions and the F-16 being particularly vulnerable to foreign object damage is certainly true, but Ukraine would happily throw people and resources at the problem of maintaining intact and clean runways.
Everything that's commonly said about the Gripen performing admirably in rugged conditions and the F-16 being particularly vulnerable to foreign object damage is certainly true, but Ukraine would happily throw people and resources at the problem of maintaining intact and clean runways.
I think the question of which ally would supply what to Ukraine was generally pretty flexible - there were various statements about not supplying hardware like Bradley, Leopard, Challenger and F-16, I guess due to Russian threats about how it'd consider that an "escalation". But those appear to have melted away, so I just figured such statements were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Flexible is right, but with the weird caveat that the company which manufactures the hardware (and the nation in which it's headquartered) generally gets a veto when it comes to any one of its customers sending any given item to Ukraine, if they want it. That's about the contracts and terms military hardware is sold under, and the need for ongoing maintenance contracts. It's why Germany, after gifting Ukraine with some anti-aircraft equipment, couldn't send surplus Oerlikon ammo to Ukraine. Switzerland, where the ammo was manufactured, would not allow it.
(not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)
(not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)
Yeah, the Swiss neutrality has the same quirks and hypocrisies of every neutrality that ever existed. Specially when it has a relevant arms industry.
With the banking part it was always easier to skate most pressures because at the end of the day the World is controlled by rich people and they all have interest in the "safety" of Switzerland. With weapons they are in this narrow "Buy now from us, because we will not sell during the your conflict.". When sh*t hits the fan these typical Swiss dances don't work and I'm guessing they'll have an hard time selling anything of relevance in the future..
With the banking part it was always easier to skate most pressures because at the end of the day the World is controlled by rich people and they all have interest in the "safety" of Switzerland. With weapons they are in this narrow "Buy now from us, because we will not sell during the your conflict.". When sh*t hits the fan these typical Swiss dances don't work and I'm guessing they'll have an hard time selling anything of relevance in the future..
I don't have any insight into Swiss politics (and I might not be up to date on the news in this area) but it surprises me that they didn't find a way to make an exception for Germany and Ukraine, given it would have involved a purely defensive weapon system that saves a lot of civilian lives. And it would perhaps have saved their arms export industry.
One of the reasons is there are much more F-16s both in number of units and consequently support ( of all kinds ) and know-how from many operator countries.
Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
The rafale is successful though, it exports pretty well.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just...
And Lockheed was really good at direct-to-decision-maker-marketing.
The F-16 is not a Lockheed plane, which why it's so popular. Lockheed planes are expensive and high maintenance. The FB-111, B1B (8% readiness rate), OV-102 (space shuttle, 40% of which failed), and of course the F-35.
EDIT: Guess it's a bait-and-swtich -- LM got their hands on the F16 somehow: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-...
The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.
EDIT: Guess it's a bait-and-swtich -- LM got their hands on the F16 somehow: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-...
The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.
The F-16 is the most numerous fighter jet in existence today and some countries are replacing them with F-35s, so there are a few dozen F-16s that might be available soon for Ukraine.
On the other hand, the amount of Gripens available is in the low hundreds, which in practice means that Sweden would have to donate a significant part of it's current air force capability to Ukraine.
Easy: avaiability, in every sense. There are many, many more F-16 in service to draw from. As are more operators, making training easier. And maitennace, everything from spqres to sites to people, is much easier to come by at scale for F-16s.
All of the above under the caveat of needing it now.
All of the above under the caveat of needing it now.
Ah yeah I only just looked at its wiki page now, there's about 150-ish in total and under 30 in Central Europe (14 in ČR, 14 in Hungary - suspect the latter wouldn't be too keen to help out Ukraine).
Edit: wow apparently as-of 2010 there were around 4,500 F-16 delivered around the world.
Edit: wow apparently as-of 2010 there were around 4,500 F-16 delivered around the world.
I would guess the F-16 fleet is easier to quickly expand than one based on Gripens as the supply of F-16:s is larger. Also creates a direct link to US military industrial complex which will help with US support in coming years (good business). The intake in f-16 seems really troublesome for takeoffs in ruddy envorinments.
Has the RAF actually surveyed some of the motorways in the north of England recently?
I nearly broke a spring from a dipped pothole on the M6 south.
Not to forget all the smart motorway signs every 100 meters and signboards overhead, will make a landing "interesting".
I nearly broke a spring from a dipped pothole on the M6 south.
Not to forget all the smart motorway signs every 100 meters and signboards overhead, will make a landing "interesting".
Vertical landing drops staight in from the sky, and comes to an immediate halt. These planes just need a strip of concrete wider & longer than the plane itself. Realistically you could comfortably put one down on a motorway service station carpark, and then lay a short portable runway along its off-ramp for takeoff.
> Realistically you could comfortably put one down on a motorway service station carpark
I'm sure the exceptionally canny operators of motorway service stations would find a way to make some extra money off them then. Come for a coffee, stay for a jet launch.
I'm sure the exceptionally canny operators of motorway service stations would find a way to make some extra money off them then. Come for a coffee, stay for a jet launch.
Or get a parking fine for staying longer than 2 hours with your jet...
Clamp the tires for illegal parking
It is never going to be for the UK.
With Ukraine you want the plane to take off from Ukraine, not the UK, or else it is seen as direct involvement. So the plane takes off from the UK, lands in the motorway somewhere near Keeeev and then the Ukrainian pilot hops on, to carry out the mission.
He then lands on the highway again, the plane stays still for the British pilot to get in, he does so, flying up to meet a tanker over Poo land to then get home by teatime.
He lands on a regular runway.
With Ukraine you want the plane to take off from Ukraine, not the UK, or else it is seen as direct involvement. So the plane takes off from the UK, lands in the motorway somewhere near Keeeev and then the Ukrainian pilot hops on, to carry out the mission.
He then lands on the highway again, the plane stays still for the British pilot to get in, he does so, flying up to meet a tanker over Poo land to then get home by teatime.
He lands on a regular runway.
But what about if you want to disperse fighter jets away from runways so that its not so easy to destroy all of our planes?
The UK has 30 F-35Bs, ~50 RAF bases, and over 200 airports. (mostly hastily built WW2 airfields kept in operation by local flying clubs [1]) Every country within the plane's operating range except Switzerland and Ireland is a NATO ally.
We can disperse the fighter jets without needing to resort to landing on roads.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_United...
We can disperse the fighter jets without needing to resort to landing on roads.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_United...
Sikorsky is gonna bring back the Comanche. I can feel it. Yeah baby!
That's the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30405/behold-sikorskys...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30405/behold-sikorskys...
Dunno, the V280 was selected for FVL and FLRAA at the end of 2022; if only for pilot training and maintenance logistics, it probably makes more sense for FARA to go that way, as well.
We'll see. Afaik, the Sikorsky bid screwed FLRAA by being insufficiently detailed with their architecture in the proposal.
They claimed it would be half the price of the V280.
Since the Raider X is based on the same platform, it doesn't seem unreasonable it'd be competitive after they fix the documentation. And there might be a tendency to split the winners to sustain multiple builders.
They claimed it would be half the price of the V280.
Since the Raider X is based on the same platform, it doesn't seem unreasonable it'd be competitive after they fix the documentation. And there might be a tendency to split the winners to sustain multiple builders.
They also didn't come close to the required lift capacity in FVL, but that matters less here.
I'd probably also have some concerns about the counter-rotating blades, as they've given the Ka-50/52 some serious problems with vibration - I've heard of them losing munitions from the winglets and experiencing airframe damage. I know Sikorsky isn't Kamov, but still.
I'd probably also have some concerns about the counter-rotating blades, as they've given the Ka-50/52 some serious problems with vibration - I've heard of them losing munitions from the winglets and experiencing airframe damage. I know Sikorsky isn't Kamov, but still.
This looks like real life Airwolf
For reference here's a video of F-18 doing it (with conventional landing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_eJxy8ojk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_eJxy8ojk
[deleted]
I still have no idea what to expect from the F35. I'm not someone that knows a lot about fighter aircraft. The F22 was quickly hailed as the pinnacle of what it was designed to do, essentially unmatched today. Then they just stopped making them.
Reviews of the F35 are vague. Israel is buying them but it's essentially getting them for free. So why not? Anyone have a true read on if the F35 is actually a dominant platform?
Reviews of the F35 are vague. Israel is buying them but it's essentially getting them for free. So why not? Anyone have a true read on if the F35 is actually a dominant platform?
That's not even the right question to ask. The F-35 is the only survivable, 5th generation tactical aircraft available for purchase today. So whether it's "dominant" or not is kind of moot since there are effectively no other options.
Sure, there are a few 4th generation airframes still in production and they are useful for certain limited missions like homeland defense and counterinsurgency. But those are dying platforms with little capacity to take upgrades and poor survivability against peer threats so it doesn't make sense for countries like the UK to buy more.
Sure, there are a few 4th generation airframes still in production and they are useful for certain limited missions like homeland defense and counterinsurgency. But those are dying platforms with little capacity to take upgrades and poor survivability against peer threats so it doesn't make sense for countries like the UK to buy more.
The F-22 and F-35 are different. The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, it is stealthy F-15. The F-35 is a smaller multi-role fighter, it is sort of stealthy F-16 or F-18. The F-35 is significantly cheaper; the F-22 was cancelled because of the expense.
Lots of countries are buying the F-35. It hits a sweet spot of multi-role fighter with a big bonus of stealth. Also, there is VTOL F-35 variant that the US Marines and other countries with smaller carriers are buying.
The F-22 is still better in many ways. The F-35 is what is available now. The Air Force and Navy are working in two separate programs for replacing F-22 and F/A-18E/F respectively. The result should be much better than F-35, but also more expensive.
Lots of countries are buying the F-35. It hits a sweet spot of multi-role fighter with a big bonus of stealth. Also, there is VTOL F-35 variant that the US Marines and other countries with smaller carriers are buying.
The F-22 is still better in many ways. The F-35 is what is available now. The Air Force and Navy are working in two separate programs for replacing F-22 and F/A-18E/F respectively. The result should be much better than F-35, but also more expensive.
Short answer is different roles. F22 is specifically an air superiority platform, which is why only the Air Force has it. F35 is a multi role platform and a lot of its value comes from its ability to communicate with the infra surround its roles.
The F35 is also meant to be very flexible, so that we can slap new toys into it as the world turns. It's supposed to run it's own little "fleet" of networked drones and MALDs and similar so that it can grab all the intel of everything about the enemy and send that info back to a bunch of A-10s and/or B52s carrying long range munitions to actually fire.
It has been hugely successful at what it was designed to do: remove untold dollars from the American taxpayer and put them in the pockets of political donors.
Funnily enough, just came back from RIAT yesterday after seeing one of these pretty much hover in mid air... what a sight! amazing machines.
Wouldn't the F35-B be sensitive to random crap laying on the ground ? I don't know that its air intake was made for anything else than spotless surfaces. As far as I'm aware only the Soviets/Russians designed planes with that in mind.
The F35B is also known to have damaged existing aircraft carriers by melting the flight decks during testing.
This won't work, it'll fail for the same reasons the proposals to use highways for the Harrier fell apart in reality - too much damage to use it at any time other than wartime, resulting in no training for landing on highways, so it'll never happen even in wartime. Besides which, if you're at war where you need a defensive air force to be able to use make-shift airbases, you've almost certainly already lost.
This won't work, it'll fail for the same reasons the proposals to use highways for the Harrier fell apart in reality - too much damage to use it at any time other than wartime, resulting in no training for landing on highways, so it'll never happen even in wartime. Besides which, if you're at war where you need a defensive air force to be able to use make-shift airbases, you've almost certainly already lost.
It could get a few extra sorties out of the airplanes before they are all shot down or out of action due to technical difficulties. For a small country with limited external support that could be worth the relatively small cost.
Also, the "almost certainly already lost" situation is exactly what small countries are facing if Russia attacks them. Their main air bases are going to be attacked. Regular relocation of equipment may be the only way to survive more than a few hours.
Also, the "almost certainly already lost" situation is exactly what small countries are facing if Russia attacks them. Their main air bases are going to be attacked. Regular relocation of equipment may be the only way to survive more than a few hours.
We're talking about the UK though - and I don't think the US has given us the license to sell our F35s to anyone else (not that they're any different from the USMC's F35B) - so if you're at the point where you need to defend from invaded land, we really have 'already lost'.
Would this make highways a legitimate military target?
As another poster mentioned, fuck yes it does. They always were. Roads transport war machines.
They always were.
This is in the context of fighting Russia, and current events demonstrate that the legitimacy of a target is moot.
But of course highways, infrastructure, is a relevant thing to destroy in war.
But of course highways, infrastructure, is a relevant thing to destroy in war.
Do you have any evidence to back this up?
Look at Civilian vs Soldier dead for various major wars.
Only ONE war has WAY more soldiers killed than civilians. If Russia is trying to target Ukrainians, they are doing a worse job than any war you can name.
[2] Another definite lie. Studies done in 2004 and 2006 published in Lancet showed around 1M excess deaths of which almost all were directly attributable to the war and at least 31% were directly attributable to US forces. Who knows how many people died in all the conflicts that followed in the next 15 years. The US officially rejects these studies as flawed, but the British MoD considered it to be robust and adhering to best practices. Further, it used the same methodology and team the US considered to be stellar when doing the exact same thing the exact same way in the Congo.
[3] From the Ukrainian MoD and/or Ukraine-leaning groups, so the likely bias is to overstate Civilian deaths, overstate Russian KIA, and understate Ukrainian KIA.
Look at Civilian vs Soldier dead for various major wars.
Only ONE war has WAY more soldiers killed than civilians. If Russia is trying to target Ukrainians, they are doing a worse job than any war you can name.
Civilians Soldiers
WW1 10M 7M
WW2 50-55M 21-25M
Korea 2.7M 0.8M
Vietnam 2.5M 1.1M
Kosovo 1-5K 0.5-1K
Afghanistan 500K[1] 100K
Iraq 135K[2] 40K
Ukraine[3] 9K 65-250K
[2] Another definite lie. Studies done in 2004 and 2006 published in Lancet showed around 1M excess deaths of which almost all were directly attributable to the war and at least 31% were directly attributable to US forces. Who knows how many people died in all the conflicts that followed in the next 15 years. The US officially rejects these studies as flawed, but the British MoD considered it to be robust and adhering to best practices. Further, it used the same methodology and team the US considered to be stellar when doing the exact same thing the exact same way in the Congo.
[3] From the Ukrainian MoD and/or Ukraine-leaning groups, so the likely bias is to overstate Civilian deaths, overstate Russian KIA, and understate Ukrainian KIA.
lisasays(1)
Highways will be able to land vertically with this technology?
Hmm, never knew they have highways in the UK.
darkclouds(7)
Parking lots would make more sense than highways.
They're STOVL airplanes. Short Take Off Vertical Landing. They can only take off vertically on exhibitions, when they're carrying no weapons and little fuel. For normal operations they need a short runway.
I believe they also have a VTOL capacity of about 5,000lbs (vs 2,500lbs for the Harrier). The second you switch it to STOVL though, that capacity increases dramatically, so there's generally not going to be a reason to attempt VTOL in combat.
Off-topic, but the F-35 VTOL design is amusing to me in that it was designed by Russia, but they never made more than a prototype and sold the tech to the US where we've now used it to make planes to take on Russia.
Off-topic, but the F-35 VTOL design is amusing to me in that it was designed by Russia, but they never made more than a prototype and sold the tech to the US where we've now used it to make planes to take on Russia.
A modern industrial estate could be more useful than somewhere more remote. You get large car parks to park vehicles and build things. Warehouses to hide equipment, do maintenance, and provide shelter. You have access to grid power and water. It will be on existing transport networks.
And it might just provide better cover. Western europe has hundreds of places like this. The enemy has to work out which building you are using in a group of fifty other non-descript buildings.
And it might just provide better cover. Western europe has hundreds of places like this. The enemy has to work out which building you are using in a group of fifty other non-descript buildings.
Parking lots would make no sense whatsoever, and I fail to see how you’d even get the idea that they would.
I assume OP means because it's a VTOL? It doesn't need a runway, just a large enough flat spot.
Yes, I realized that afterwards, but it’s not VTOL but STOVL. I believe it can take off vertically but mostly for airshow demonstration purposes, with minimal fuel and armament.
In any case, highways make much more sense logistically and operationally.
In any case, highways make much more sense logistically and operationally.
Extremely big parking is an US thing!
As long as our global society puts this much carbon in the atmosphere for "defence" purposes, we have no chance of maintaining a human-friendly climate on Earth in 20-30 years.
“in light of potential Russian aggression in Europe”
Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border. Despite repeated statements from the Russians that there would be push-back. --
coob > “NATO have always been on Russia’s border.” (deleted)
On the Soviet Unions border. When the Soviets relinquished control of the client states to the west, they were given an understanding that NATO would not expand east.
(and modded down)
Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border. Despite repeated statements from the Russians that there would be push-back. --
coob > “NATO have always been on Russia’s border.” (deleted)
On the Soviet Unions border. When the Soviets relinquished control of the client states to the west, they were given an understanding that NATO would not expand east.
(and modded down)
Modded down for a good reason.
1. The client states weren't client states. They were de-facto annexed polities with centuries of distinct characteristics. After Soviet Union fell these countries could resume their legitimate existence.
2. Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value. A country on the Russia's border has no reason to be categorized under "russian dominion".
Legitimate states have unalienable right under international law to guide their own path, regardless who their neighbours are.
If your neighbour is Russia, you really want to ally with a larger party.
"Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border."
Nobody PUSHED NATO. This is what is wrong about the posting above. The CCE countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, knew very wall what Russia was and that it had not changed.
They wanted to join NATO exactly because they knew Russia would one day again attempt to annex them.
Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
1. The client states weren't client states. They were de-facto annexed polities with centuries of distinct characteristics. After Soviet Union fell these countries could resume their legitimate existence.
2. Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value. A country on the Russia's border has no reason to be categorized under "russian dominion".
Legitimate states have unalienable right under international law to guide their own path, regardless who their neighbours are.
If your neighbour is Russia, you really want to ally with a larger party.
"Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border."
Nobody PUSHED NATO. This is what is wrong about the posting above. The CCE countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, knew very wall what Russia was and that it had not changed.
They wanted to join NATO exactly because they knew Russia would one day again attempt to annex them.
Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
>Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value.
Wow dude, that is quite deranged.
>Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
Russia borders 14 countries, and I don't think it fought with any except over the issue of NATO membership.
Wow dude, that is quite deranged.
>Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
Russia borders 14 countries, and I don't think it fought with any except over the issue of NATO membership.
Russia has only fought with the countries who sought to join a military alliance to protect themselves ... from Russia?
Incredible.
Incredible.
You don't think I might have a problem if my roommate joined the anti-pessimizer alliance?
Shocking.
Shocking.
That's a poor analogy. It's more like you're threatening your neighbours, fucking around with their apartments and they join the local neighbourhood watch. And as a response your reaction is to break into their apartments and cry about their "aggression" against you.
You should start asking why ALL of your former roommates seem to join the anti-pessimizer league. Russian sympathetics like to say "what if Russia puts bases in Mexico" but that's actually a great unintentional example. We treat Mexico like GARBAGE, we had a president suggest that most of the Mexicans crossing the border are murderers and rapists. Yet they still consider themselves a strong ally of ours. They don't WANT to stab us in the back.
NATO is not an anti-Russian league.
Russia has nukes to protect its sovereignty. It has absolutely nothing to fear from NATO.
What Russia does not like, is to be denied the capability to invade and threaten it's neighbours (because they joined NATO).
Russia has nukes to protect its sovereignty. It has absolutely nothing to fear from NATO.
What Russia does not like, is to be denied the capability to invade and threaten it's neighbours (because they joined NATO).
In 2008 Russia attacked Georgia
relations between Russia and Georgia began to deteriorate, reaching a full diplomatic crisis by April 2008, when NATO promised to consider Georgia's bid for membership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
I'm starting to see a pattern here - country seeks closer ties with NATO as a means of protection from Russia, followed by a war with Russia.
NATO has a pretty questionable history what with Operation Gladio and the like, but I'm not sure how these are examples of NATO aggression given that Russia was, y'know, the aggressor.
NATO has a pretty questionable history what with Operation Gladio and the like, but I'm not sure how these are examples of NATO aggression given that Russia was, y'know, the aggressor.
Neither was this war about NATO.
NATO was an excuse.
The war in ukraine is colonial and genocidal war with the intent of eradicating Ukrainian language and statehood and subvert the fee will of Ukrainian people under Russian yoke.
NATO was an excuse.
The war in ukraine is colonial and genocidal war with the intent of eradicating Ukrainian language and statehood and subvert the fee will of Ukrainian people under Russian yoke.
It's strange that they go ahead with making this excuse when everyone could have just consulted you.
Russian state makes publicly whatever statements they feel are judicious. Don't trust anything the Kremlin says.
Note they accepted Finlands entry to NATO alliance without so much as a whimper.
While complete calculus behind the reasons for the invasion may never surface, these offer excellent commentary why more countries joining NATO was not really the real reason for the war.
'Moreover, this is not even primarily about NATO. ... The larger objective is to re-establish Russian political and cultural dominance over a nation that Putin sees as one with Russia, and then follow up by undoing the European rules-based order and security architecture established in the aftermath of World War II. ... If Russia’s main concern had been NATO enlargement, it would have reacted with rhetoric and/or hostile actions in its neighborhood after each step in the NATO expansion process. The largest wave of NATO’s eastward expansion took place in March 2004, when seven Eastern European countries joined, including the formerly Soviet Baltic states. Russia “grumbled,” as the New York Times put it then, by adopting a Duma resolution criticizing the expansion, but no hostile and sustained rhetoric followed about NATO enlargement as a Western plot against Russian interests.'[0]
'Some claim Russia was goaded into acting by the threat of NATO expansion. But Putin himself said in 2004 that 'Russia has no concerns about the expansion of NATO from the standpoint of ensuring security'. Russia, after all, has a massive nuclear arsenal and has no reason to fear any adversary. What is the purpose of nuclear weapons then? In addition, several countries bordering Russia, including Finland and the Baltic States are already entering the alliance, with not a murmur from Moscow.'[1]
[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/80343/russias-new-assault-on-uk...
[1] https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21-expert-comment-no-proxy...
Note they accepted Finlands entry to NATO alliance without so much as a whimper.
While complete calculus behind the reasons for the invasion may never surface, these offer excellent commentary why more countries joining NATO was not really the real reason for the war.
'Moreover, this is not even primarily about NATO. ... The larger objective is to re-establish Russian political and cultural dominance over a nation that Putin sees as one with Russia, and then follow up by undoing the European rules-based order and security architecture established in the aftermath of World War II. ... If Russia’s main concern had been NATO enlargement, it would have reacted with rhetoric and/or hostile actions in its neighborhood after each step in the NATO expansion process. The largest wave of NATO’s eastward expansion took place in March 2004, when seven Eastern European countries joined, including the formerly Soviet Baltic states. Russia “grumbled,” as the New York Times put it then, by adopting a Duma resolution criticizing the expansion, but no hostile and sustained rhetoric followed about NATO enlargement as a Western plot against Russian interests.'[0]
'Some claim Russia was goaded into acting by the threat of NATO expansion. But Putin himself said in 2004 that 'Russia has no concerns about the expansion of NATO from the standpoint of ensuring security'. Russia, after all, has a massive nuclear arsenal and has no reason to fear any adversary. What is the purpose of nuclear weapons then? In addition, several countries bordering Russia, including Finland and the Baltic States are already entering the alliance, with not a murmur from Moscow.'[1]
[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/80343/russias-new-assault-on-uk...
[1] https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21-expert-comment-no-proxy...
Maybe the west did make some mistakes in its dealing with Russia. But that does not justify Russian aggression or negate the need to repel that agression.
West: mistakes
Russia: aggression
Russia: aggression
Western agression (if you want to put it like that) does not justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nor would it reduce the threat Russia poses. Surely it would increase it!
> Western agression (if you want to put it like that) does not justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nor would it reduce the threat Russia poses. Surely it would increase it!
How many times has Russia invaded western Europe? How many times has Europe launched an invasion of Russia (3).
How many times has Russia invaded western Europe? How many times has Europe launched an invasion of Russia (3).
Ahhh very carefully worded indeed. I know you desperately wanted to refer to NATO, but that would mean conceding that "Russia" (since you're conflating the USSR and Russia, and assuming modern day borders) had invaded Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary after WW2. All three countries who leapt at the chance to join a pact which meant they wouldn't meet the same fate again, as did Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland who had also been subjugated by Russia in some form in the past
I mean if you really want to keep score we can continue, and we can explore what happened to some former USSR or Russian Empire countries who didn't join NATO (Belarus being the last dictatorship in Europe and under Putin's thumb, Georgia/Russia wars, Ukraine and the very war we are discussing right now), but I don't think it ends well for your argument...
I mean if you really want to keep score we can continue, and we can explore what happened to some former USSR or Russian Empire countries who didn't join NATO (Belarus being the last dictatorship in Europe and under Putin's thumb, Georgia/Russia wars, Ukraine and the very war we are discussing right now), but I don't think it ends well for your argument...
How many times has Russia invaded western Europe?
Since "Western" Europe now includes Poland, the Baltics, Moldova and Finland - perhaps you can answer that question for us.
For extra credit: which "Western" country did Russia sign an active military alliance with -- and not only join it invading one of the above countries; but march together with its troops in victory parades, afterwards?
Since "Western" Europe now includes Poland, the Baltics, Moldova and Finland - perhaps you can answer that question for us.
For extra credit: which "Western" country did Russia sign an active military alliance with -- and not only join it invading one of the above countries; but march together with its troops in victory parades, afterwards?
[deleted]
When I want to know more about the future of warfare as a hacker news reader I base my opinion on a few cherry picked twitter/reddit videos (plus literal Russian propaganda) and this makes me more knowledgable than military leaders and qualified to dictate the direction of military procurement.
I hope you've learned something about the hazards of sarcasm.
How would you know who is qualified for what?
I don't have perfect knowledge of this but disagreeing with military leaders based on a couple videos is definitely non-credible. Linking Russian drone propaganda is useful to let people know that drones exist perhaps, but not for much beyond that.
Beyond that central theme, certain things don't pass the smell test in my opinion. For example:
- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.
- Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. I have seen no such thing although I am open to being proven wrong here. My understanding is that jamming has been effective for both Russia and Ukraine EXCEPT for offensives where the attackers need to extend beyond the protection of EW.
- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
Beyond that central theme, certain things don't pass the smell test in my opinion. For example:
- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.
- Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. I have seen no such thing although I am open to being proven wrong here. My understanding is that jamming has been effective for both Russia and Ukraine EXCEPT for offensives where the attackers need to extend beyond the protection of EW.
- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
>Lancets are winning the war.
This is a laughable claim. Lancets are awesome weapons, cost effective, accurate, and productive. But they cannot win the war on their own in any sense. They require certain intelligence to use effectively, intelligence that Russia is getting less of than Ukraine through NATO. More artillery is being destroyed by other artillery than Lancets. They just aren't made in the quantity that 152mm shells are.
>Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. Why do you state this and then immediately say you have seen zero evidence? You can't just release a swarm of RF seeking drones into the sky, you'll blow up all your own people and stuff too.
>Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.
This is a laughable claim. Lancets are awesome weapons, cost effective, accurate, and productive. But they cannot win the war on their own in any sense. They require certain intelligence to use effectively, intelligence that Russia is getting less of than Ukraine through NATO. More artillery is being destroyed by other artillery than Lancets. They just aren't made in the quantity that 152mm shells are.
>Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. Why do you state this and then immediately say you have seen zero evidence? You can't just release a swarm of RF seeking drones into the sky, you'll blow up all your own people and stuff too.
>Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.
FFS... you're getting confused by koube's botched formatting and making the same formatting mistake at the same time! He put the claims that don't pass his sniff test on the same line as his skeptical remarks about those claims, without any formatting to differentiate the two.
> "- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates."
The first sentence is the claim that doesn't pass his sniff test. The rest of that line is his explanation for why it doesn't pass his sniff test. It should be something like
> - "Lancets are winning the war"
> Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.
And
> "- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today."
Should be formatted like
> - "Western weapons get less useful by the minute."
> This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
But then you made the same mistake right here:
">Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion."
That should be formatted as
> "Western weapons get less useful by the minute"
> Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.
> "- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates."
The first sentence is the claim that doesn't pass his sniff test. The rest of that line is his explanation for why it doesn't pass his sniff test. It should be something like
> - "Lancets are winning the war"
> Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.
And
> "- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today."
Should be formatted like
> - "Western weapons get less useful by the minute."
> This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
But then you made the same mistake right here:
">Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion."
That should be formatted as
> "Western weapons get less useful by the minute"
> Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.
I think what confused me was that I didn't see anyone actually making those assertions, so I assumed they were doing so.
Ooof
Ooof
The thread now is very different from the thread at midnight when there was low comment volume. This[0] was the only top level comment and there wasn't much pushback, like one person disagreeing.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36736090
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36736090
>and this makes me more knowledgable than military leaders and qualified to dictate the direction of military procurement.
How would you know who is qualified for what?
I... just explained that. I am confident that the commenters talking about these things are not qualified based on the things they're saying. I wasn't making any allusions to being an expert on military matters. I'm saying these people are obviously not qualified, and I explained what makes me think that.
How do you know your preferred experts are experts?
This seems like a very philosophical discussion. I'm not sure what you want here. Do you want me to explain reading the news? You take in new information, and if it disagrees with your prior knowledge, then you make a judgement call on what the truth probably is. We don't understand global politics from first principles.
What information do you have with regards to ""How would you know who is qualified for what?
Lancet is so powerful in this war that I'd be shocked if we aren't currently working on our own version as fast as we can.
CAS is critical to advances. It is somewhat stopped by MANPADS, but stopped very hard by SAMs. When flying close to the trees, physics make it so that a SAM radar can't detect a plane until they are within 5-8 miles. This means intercepting a plane or helicopter attacking the front lines (launching missiles from a distance) puts the radar very close to the front.
Lancet has a range of about 30 miles, so if you place your SAMs close enough to intercept the planes, they are now in striking distance of the Lancet. Because the Lancet flies in so low and has such a tiny radar cross-section, intercepting it is incredibly hard. Even if it is intercepted, using a $4,000,000 missile to destroy a $35,000 drone is a terrible deal. This deal is even worse when you consider Ukraine can't get any more S-300 rockets and Patriot missiles are of very limited production per year (500 or so IIRC).
Going further, our newest 155mm artillery is the M777 and we've given a bunch to Ukraine. Setting aside the maintenance issue (we admitted 30% are in the shop at any given time which isn't surprising given the reliability issues our marines have had with them), their maximum range is under 20 miles which puts them in the range of a Lancet too.
Russia has had to rely on Kornet ATGMs for most of the war. These are direct fire, so hitting the weak top of a tank is almost impossible. There are videos of a Leopard seeming to take a couple Kornet hits and still being serviceable. In contrast, the Lancet offers Russia the ability to do downward attacks at the thin top armor. We have videos of them doing exactly this to take out a Leopard or two. This issue exists not just for tanks, but for artillery and other vehicles based on the Leopard chassis.
Circling back around, this leads to the artillery attrition. Russia has been consistently shooting 5-10x as many shells as Ukraine. Ukraine is basically out of Soviet 152mm shells and doesn't have a great way to replace parts on their Soviet artillery anyway. NATO has basically given all the spare 155mm shells we have. We're ramping up production, but we won't be matching Russia's advantage for a couple more years at the earliest. This is one of the reasons Biden wants to send cluster munitions -- we're out of everything else.
The Russian drone swarms stuff is just propaganda. There's been no evidence of anything like that. The closest to this is definitely Ukraine with all the small suicide drones they've been pushing out which don't work well against armored targets, but work very well against personnel (and you can't hold ground without people).
Western weapons is more about perception than anything. We in America have a superiority complex when it comes to our equipment. When you aren't facing people with AKs and outdated RPGs, our equipment is a lot more vulnerable than people want to believe. Tanks, IFVs, MRAPs, artillery, etc have all been only a little better than Russia's stuff because ATGMs, drones, and mines are proving to be so powerful. On the flip side, Patriot, MANPADS, and Javelin ATGMs have been and continue to be absolutely stellar.
Based on the crushed Ukrainian offensive (still haven't reached the first true defensive line), I can say without reservation that what Ukraine needs is: attack helicopters to work on defense, more ATGMs, 10x as many man-portable EW systems, and an attack drone that actually works.
CAS is critical to advances. It is somewhat stopped by MANPADS, but stopped very hard by SAMs. When flying close to the trees, physics make it so that a SAM radar can't detect a plane until they are within 5-8 miles. This means intercepting a plane or helicopter attacking the front lines (launching missiles from a distance) puts the radar very close to the front.
Lancet has a range of about 30 miles, so if you place your SAMs close enough to intercept the planes, they are now in striking distance of the Lancet. Because the Lancet flies in so low and has such a tiny radar cross-section, intercepting it is incredibly hard. Even if it is intercepted, using a $4,000,000 missile to destroy a $35,000 drone is a terrible deal. This deal is even worse when you consider Ukraine can't get any more S-300 rockets and Patriot missiles are of very limited production per year (500 or so IIRC).
Going further, our newest 155mm artillery is the M777 and we've given a bunch to Ukraine. Setting aside the maintenance issue (we admitted 30% are in the shop at any given time which isn't surprising given the reliability issues our marines have had with them), their maximum range is under 20 miles which puts them in the range of a Lancet too.
Russia has had to rely on Kornet ATGMs for most of the war. These are direct fire, so hitting the weak top of a tank is almost impossible. There are videos of a Leopard seeming to take a couple Kornet hits and still being serviceable. In contrast, the Lancet offers Russia the ability to do downward attacks at the thin top armor. We have videos of them doing exactly this to take out a Leopard or two. This issue exists not just for tanks, but for artillery and other vehicles based on the Leopard chassis.
Circling back around, this leads to the artillery attrition. Russia has been consistently shooting 5-10x as many shells as Ukraine. Ukraine is basically out of Soviet 152mm shells and doesn't have a great way to replace parts on their Soviet artillery anyway. NATO has basically given all the spare 155mm shells we have. We're ramping up production, but we won't be matching Russia's advantage for a couple more years at the earliest. This is one of the reasons Biden wants to send cluster munitions -- we're out of everything else.
The Russian drone swarms stuff is just propaganda. There's been no evidence of anything like that. The closest to this is definitely Ukraine with all the small suicide drones they've been pushing out which don't work well against armored targets, but work very well against personnel (and you can't hold ground without people).
Western weapons is more about perception than anything. We in America have a superiority complex when it comes to our equipment. When you aren't facing people with AKs and outdated RPGs, our equipment is a lot more vulnerable than people want to believe. Tanks, IFVs, MRAPs, artillery, etc have all been only a little better than Russia's stuff because ATGMs, drones, and mines are proving to be so powerful. On the flip side, Patriot, MANPADS, and Javelin ATGMs have been and continue to be absolutely stellar.
Based on the crushed Ukrainian offensive (still haven't reached the first true defensive line), I can say without reservation that what Ukraine needs is: attack helicopters to work on defense, more ATGMs, 10x as many man-portable EW systems, and an attack drone that actually works.
Counter battery radar + $50k gmlrs with better range and better time on target and 182k tungsten balls seems more like a winning plan than a spotting drone and $35k drone that flies slowly, has limited range, is vulnerable to to EW, and needs to hit the target directly.
You have made a lot of points why the lancets MIGHT be very good, and certainly it's one of the most effective weapons on the Russian side today. However my central point remains the same: Ukraine is winning the artillery attrition war despite these features. In order to be a game changer you need to actually change the game, if you're losing 3:1 of your artillery pieces or even 2:1 then it calls in to question how much your weapon is changing the nature of warfare.
Some of your speculation I agree with it and some I don't but on the whole I want to avoid making affirmative statements on the direction of the war, since as I said before, I am not an expert on this. Anything I say would just be speculation.
If anyone is curious to know more, Perun on youtube does powerpoint presentations which SEEM mostly level headed:
- Focus on economics, production, and procurement
- Presents statements of multiple sources, does not take any at face value
- Is clear about what information he knows and doesn't know
- Is incredibly boring which fits my mental stereotype of people who know what they're talking about
You have made a lot of points why the lancets MIGHT be very good, and certainly it's one of the most effective weapons on the Russian side today. However my central point remains the same: Ukraine is winning the artillery attrition war despite these features. In order to be a game changer you need to actually change the game, if you're losing 3:1 of your artillery pieces or even 2:1 then it calls in to question how much your weapon is changing the nature of warfare.
Some of your speculation I agree with it and some I don't but on the whole I want to avoid making affirmative statements on the direction of the war, since as I said before, I am not an expert on this. Anything I say would just be speculation.
If anyone is curious to know more, Perun on youtube does powerpoint presentations which SEEM mostly level headed:
- Focus on economics, production, and procurement
- Presents statements of multiple sources, does not take any at face value
- Is clear about what information he knows and doesn't know
- Is incredibly boring which fits my mental stereotype of people who know what they're talking about
I've seen quite a few videos of Lancet drones taking out counter-battery radars. There are issues there (a Russian general got in big trouble for speaking out about this), but it is largely overstated.
HIMARS are basically identical in capabilities to the Russian Tornado S MLRS (which is actually a little newer than HIMARS). Turn off the GPS and the accuracy is worse than artillery.
Lancets don't generally run into EW issues because if there is EW in the area, the spotter drone is affected.
Losses are a very subjective thing and if you look through Oryx yourself, you'll see some interesting repetition. I'll leave that there.
I've watched almost every video Perun has made, but he's not always right.
HIMARS are basically identical in capabilities to the Russian Tornado S MLRS (which is actually a little newer than HIMARS). Turn off the GPS and the accuracy is worse than artillery.
Lancets don't generally run into EW issues because if there is EW in the area, the spotter drone is affected.
Losses are a very subjective thing and if you look through Oryx yourself, you'll see some interesting repetition. I'll leave that there.
I've watched almost every video Perun has made, but he's not always right.
If we're comparing videos, HIMARS destroyed 5 SPGs, nearly an entire battery of 6[0][1]. GPS coordinates here of all of them being in the same field[2], likely from the same battery. The ability to film drone kills is useful, but that doesn't compare to eliminating entire artillery batteries in a day in an artillery war.
Tornado S uses GLONASS just like HIMARS uses GPS. They can both be jammed. Tornado S were also already used in Ukraine but they don't use them a lot. Perhaps the supply chain of guided munitions is not great.
We can compare Ukranian vs Russian weapons all day but the proof is in the pudding. It doesn't matter how great the features of Russian weapons are if they can't match the kill rate of Ukrainian weapons.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1497511/m142...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1497hms/dest...
[2]: https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/166895463035136409...
Tornado S uses GLONASS just like HIMARS uses GPS. They can both be jammed. Tornado S were also already used in Ukraine but they don't use them a lot. Perhaps the supply chain of guided munitions is not great.
We can compare Ukranian vs Russian weapons all day but the proof is in the pudding. It doesn't matter how great the features of Russian weapons are if they can't match the kill rate of Ukrainian weapons.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1497511/m142...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1497hms/dest...
[2]: https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/166895463035136409...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aevex_Phoenix_Ghost
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aevex_Phoenix_Ghost
Switchblade is in Ukraine, but has performed quite badly.
A new design is needed IMO.
A new design is needed IMO.
Not a rhetorical question:
Has the switchblade performed poorly because the design is inadequate, or has it performed poorly because the it's not suited for Ukraine's situation? If Ukraine had a supply of Lancet clones, would they be performing well for Ukraine?
Has the switchblade performed poorly because the design is inadequate, or has it performed poorly because the it's not suited for Ukraine's situation? If Ukraine had a supply of Lancet clones, would they be performing well for Ukraine?
Switchblade 300 is basically an expensive shotgun shell designed to avoid collateral damage. It was made for special forces to take out very specific threats. Ukraine has been doing much better with commercial drones dropping grenades into trenches.
Lancet-3 is a disposable 12kg drone made pretty cheaply. The Switchblade 600 is 55kg and pretty expensive (not to mention the massive difference between hauling around 26lbs vs 120lbs).
A Switchblade 400/500 with a lower weight could hit that sweet spot too, but I don't think it was ever designed. My guess is that we'll see it and some other solutions in the near future.
If Ukraine had a Lancet-style drone, I believe it could make a massive difference taking out stuff far behind the lines pressuring Russian artillery and tanks.
Lancet-3 is a disposable 12kg drone made pretty cheaply. The Switchblade 600 is 55kg and pretty expensive (not to mention the massive difference between hauling around 26lbs vs 120lbs).
A Switchblade 400/500 with a lower weight could hit that sweet spot too, but I don't think it was ever designed. My guess is that we'll see it and some other solutions in the near future.
If Ukraine had a Lancet-style drone, I believe it could make a massive difference taking out stuff far behind the lines pressuring Russian artillery and tanks.
Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.