F-36 Kingsnake.............Say what??????

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post24 Mar 2021, 18:30

mixelflick wrote:It's time someone asked: Who the f#%! in USAF continues to make these God awful decisions?



The USAF don't always have a say in these decisions - politicians do.
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7283
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Mar 2021, 19:41

basher54321 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:It's time someone asked: Who the f#%! in USAF continues to make these God awful decisions?



The USAF don't always have a say in these decisions - politicians do.


Yep its really not the air force, in fact there are actually real life examples of people like General Moseley for example impalig himself for the F-22, he was fired for another incident and a good old fashioned transport pilot was put in as the top boss by Gates.

I ranted about this in the Finland thread, but theres basically been 2 camps in the very large US Military, and keep in mind this is not "clean" and there is overlap. I will give examples at the end.

There is COIN Camp. COIN camp believes that its RPGs and IEDs forever, and that the only thing we should be really worried about is the dirt-i-stans across the globe. SecDef Gates fell into this camp.

Then there is "Big Mil" I'm calling it that because "Small army" Spec ops types engaged in COIN and such, are usually railing at "big army" which is arty, air, infantry, armor for peer style WWII slugfests. F-22 is a Big Mil example. Its not really useful for getting the Pashtun on your side with a spot of tea (Its just that easy BTW!) but its an air dominance fighter.


Now there is again, overlap to these things. We can use small army for big jobs, and big army for small jobs. Great examples would be using B-1s as CAS (they are superb at this it turns out) and stealthy helicopters to kill UBL. The problem is Big Mil can usually (though not always-- submarines are an example) play "down" to the opponent but COIN Camp, can't. an MRAP is useless outside its specialty.

The US Military has a budget to pursue a lot of these ends, but not all of them. and more to the point, there is not a magical hardline that seperates this. It is not compartmentalized. Using the B-1s for CAS has used up their hours. We now face a (hopefully temporary) strategic bomber shortfall. so this dumb little war of little consequence is spilling into the "great power competition"

me myself I fall into Big Mil, which is weird since I'm technically COIN Camp on paper. I just figured out early on that the well was poisoned from the start. not because I'm so amazing super genius, but because I remember the Russians getting attritioned in the same place that British got attritioned. its a pretty famous area for that. might have read a history book or two about it. Afghanistan the "something, something of empires?" I forget. "bleeding wound" is what my boy Gorby called it. Glad we wouldn't do that for 9 years, but 19+? sure! I wouldn't trade the pacific for Afghanistan but I'm not a military political expert like so many of my betters.

F-22 was basically Gates, and the perception of an "uncooperative" air force in the COIN war now, vs big mil and air dominance for decades. COIN won. we have fleets of MRAPs that do nothing now and an air force that is aging and falling apart, and great news! China is here and Russia is "back" Afghanistan was never going to work and we knew this in the mid 2000s. even with the surge we had people who were pointing out that Iraq will never work either. (I can go on about both of these if you wish, and the people who pretty easily predicted they can't work and even the rise of ISIS if you want)

Afghanistan has a horrific constitution written by elites who fled the country when Ivan showed up and then flooded back and started ruling (Karzie is this) and it will never work out for regular afghans, thus its doomed. In the US elites get away with this because we are domesticated. Afghans are not.

Iraq couldn't work because democracy can't work since Sunni's are outnumbered by Shia. (suddenly out of nowhere Sunnis started slaughtering Shia in mass numbers... ever wonder why ISIS is Sunni? can't get outvoted if they're dead-- exception Chicago)

So we sacrificed conventional needed capability for unneeded unconventional boondoggles. Thats what I took CSAF brown to mean with his "ferrari" comment not that the F-35 is too costly, or that its outdated thanks to the 6th gen, or even UAVs. Its the fact that he wants to not spend a lot of money in Afghanistan and the middle east. not waste 5th gen hours and assets. This is a war that can use the "B-team" and other bench warmers and non pointy or not as pointy end tools, but again we can't afford a separate B team. the only way to increase B team is to cut into A-team. So its not just Russian's that have a "Bleeding wound in Afghanistan" We have a blood, sweat, treasure "leak" that is sacrificing the future for short term er... "gains"? I can't even call them that. but you get the picture
Choose Crews
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7283
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post24 Mar 2021, 19:55

krieger22 wrote:The Hush-Kit team is very Bong- sorry, I mean British.

Honestly I'm surprised that Mizokami didn't risk getting sacked for the level of intellectual incest going on here, but then the owner of the chimera has decided that PopMech/Task & Purpose/The War Zone articles are literally interchangeable in terms of web design and content quality.


Im an Amerimutt, and Amerifat, burger so I'm slow on the uptake. :wink:

agreed on "quality"!


This is reflective of how the tech media ecosystem is becoming increasingly reliant on hype and buzzwords to mask a lack of substance. "Good data management with good regression modeling" sounds like the ingredient list on a laundry detergent pack compared to "machine learning". https://ericbrown.com/you-probably-dont ... arning.htm

Hell, if you're working with metal a CNC lathe will still get you further than a 3D printer.


nice link too.

Here is the tech that could stop F-35 problems, but can't be used to stop F-35 problems

Image

By all means, I want my skepticism cured. I can't wait to watch them fix the Air Forces problems with this tech, and then I'll be gung-ho for the next big boondoggle, but can we fix some of these boondoggles for proof first? one way to really "wow" people with your "cure" would be to "cure" the sick man with your medicine made just for him, no?

This is how you know its a scam. that the tech is "out there" and its "soon" but its not here, and in all honesty they can't tell you when either. This is usually followed up with some weak retort like "but we have to try" or "but we have to do something"
Choose Crews
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 09:33

The USAF is planning to have operational laser pods by 2025. The idea seems to be more, if laser pods are operational and present a paradigm shift in the same way stealth was in 5th gen, cheap 4th generation platforms are better mounts for laser pods than 5th gens, who lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3583
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 10:07

inst wrote:The USAF is planning to have operational laser pods by 2025. The idea seems to be more, if laser pods are operational and present a paradigm shift in the same way stealth was in 5th gen, cheap 4th generation platforms are better mounts for laser pods than 5th gens, who lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers.


How would they lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers? It would definitely need stealthy pod, but they are pretty easy. Just look at gun pod for F-35 for example. Laser as a weapon is inherently stealthy with extremely short and focused bursts of invisible (to naked eye and wide area sensors) energy. F-35 also has a lot more electric power available to support such weapons without major modifications. It also has by far the best sensor system to provide accurate targeting info for laser weapons. Lasers are extremely accurate, but also need extremely accurate targeting info or they will also miss extremely accurately.
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 17:31

hornetfinn wrote:
inst wrote:The USAF is planning to have operational laser pods by 2025. The idea seems to be more, if laser pods are operational and present a paradigm shift in the same way stealth was in 5th gen, cheap 4th generation platforms are better mounts for laser pods than 5th gens, who lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers.


How would they lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers? It would definitely need stealthy pod, but they are pretty easy. Just look at gun pod for F-35 for example. Laser as a weapon is inherently stealthy with extremely short and focused bursts of invisible (to naked eye and wide area sensors) energy. F-35 also has a lot more electric power available to support such weapons without major modifications. It also has by far the best sensor system to provide accurate targeting info for laser weapons. Lasers are extremely accurate, but also need extremely accurate targeting info or they will also miss extremely accurately.


Stealthy pods are "stealthy", not stealth. Adding pods of any kind imposes weight and stealth penalties, especially for bands the pod isn't designed for.

The F-35 will likely receive stealth laser pods if the USAF gets laser pods operational, but the need for stealth is also going to impose weight and design penalties on the stealth laser pod (laser pods need a swivel mechanism of some kind for targeting).

===

If the F-36 is cheaper, and it's a non-stealth aircraft capable of using laser pods or having them integrated from the start, it actually becomes a better air superiority platform than the F-35 (which, admittedly, is a strike fighter). Sure, you can see it, but can you shoot it down?

===

The bigger question though, with the F-36, is that can they actually make it cheaper than the F-35? When you look at upfront costs for Rafale and Eurofighter, they're actually more expensive than the F-35. Same issue seems to apply to F-16V/F-21 fighters. Non-stealth aircraft seem to have no real upfront cost savings over legacy fighters. The difference seems to be in operating costs, that is, the maintenance of the stealth coating. In which case, why not just set aside a group of F-35s to have their stealth degrade to lower the operating cost?

===

There's a further irony about this. An F-36 Kingsnake, provided that the laser pods don't pan out, is going to be relegated to strike missions and CAS once air superiority is achieved / SEAD is done. This is the exact same role the F-35 is designed for (strike).
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3838
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 18:37

inst wrote:


Stealthy pods are "stealthy", not stealth. Adding pods of any kind imposes weight and stealth penalties, especially for bands the pod isn't designed for.

There is no technical distinction between stealth and stealthy. They're interchangeable terms, that mean reduced signature. There is no RCS definition attached
F-35s are already going to carry external stores, so how do you imagine that laser pods are going to be a greater concern, than a GBU-12/31/32....? When a VLO profile is needed, then that's the configuration they'll fly in. When VLO isn't needed, external stores can be added.


If the F-36 is cheaper, and it's a non-stealth aircraft capable of using laser pods or having them integrated from the start, it actually becomes a better air superiority platform than the F-35 (which, admittedly, is a strike fighter). Sure, you can see it, but can you shoot it down?
The F-35 will always have a first look/first shoot advantage versus any conventional jet design, and a lower mission cost, due to fewer assets being needed to achieve effect XYZ.
Offline

inst

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 148
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2015, 01:58

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 21:57

wrightwing wrote:
inst wrote:


Stealthy pods are "stealthy", not stealth. Adding pods of any kind imposes weight and stealth penalties, especially for bands the pod isn't designed for.

There is no technical distinction between stealth and stealthy. They're interchangeable terms, that mean reduced signature. There is no RCS definition attached
F-35s are already going to carry external stores, so how do you imagine that laser pods are going to be a greater concern, than a GBU-12/31/32....? When a VLO profile is needed, then that's the configuration they'll fly in. When VLO isn't needed, external stores can be added.


If the F-36 is cheaper, and it's a non-stealth aircraft capable of using laser pods or having them integrated from the start, it actually becomes a better air superiority platform than the F-35 (which, admittedly, is a strike fighter). Sure, you can see it, but can you shoot it down?
The F-35 will always have a first look/first shoot advantage versus any conventional jet design, and a lower mission cost, due to fewer assets being needed to achieve effect XYZ.


Vs a F-22 with the new quasi-EODAS installed? Then again, it's in debate as to whether the F-35's minimum (or approximate) RCS is -30 dBsm or -50 dBsm in practical bands.

====

But what's the point of a first look/first shoot advantage when your missiles are simply going to get shot down by laser point defenses? That's more the idea of going to 4th gen + laser pods.

The primary question about trying to seek a cheaper 4th gen alternative to the F-35 is whether it's going to be cheaper at all. Rafale is 110 million USD or environs for flyaway costs. The F-35A is currently around 77 million USD.

As for the F-16V, the sales to Taiwan have a listed price of about 93.9 million a piece, including parts and support. If we were to go by the Russian flyaway vs export model (roughly support / profit is one half), the F-16V would cost only 45 million a piece or so. If we go by the US model; the Japanese bought F-35s for about 200 million a piece.
Online
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7283
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 22:20

inst wrote:The USAF is planning to have operational laser pods by 2025. The idea seems to be more, if laser pods are operational and present a paradigm shift in the same way stealth was in 5th gen, cheap 4th generation platforms are better mounts for laser pods than 5th gens, who lose their stealth if they mount external high-powered lasers.


You got it backwards, in a world of lasers the plane that can't be found lives, and the plane that can be better be able to dodge at the speed of light. plus there's power generation and bunch of other stuff. one of my teammates worked in Lasers. "weapon of the future, always have been" They were super excited to get one mounted in a clapped out C-130 about 10 years ago.

None of this is new. f-35 is planned to be in service decades into the future. UAVs, UCAVs, Lasers, and other things haave been anticipated for years now. Thats part of the emphasis on LO. You can't run anymore. You can't "juke" the SAM at the last minute anymore in IADS. Not talking some individual SAMs here and there but a no joke IADs. Myriad of platforms to include lasers, cyber, and other EW along with the kinetic stuff.

people are acting like this is new. Maybe its just loke.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5680
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Mar 2021, 13:16

edpop wrote:https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/f-36-kingsnake-could-air-132900231.html



"Several aviation experts have banded together and invented a new jet out of thin air."


Just stop right there.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post26 Mar 2021, 15:42

XanderCrews wrote:So we sacrificed conventional needed capability for unneeded unconventional boondoggles. Thats what I took CSAF brown to mean with his "ferrari" comment not that the F-35 is too costly, or that its outdated thanks to the 6th gen, or even UAVs. Its the fact that he wants to not spend a lot of money in Afghanistan and the middle east. not waste 5th gen hours and assets. This is a war that can use the "B-team" and other bench warmers and non pointy or not as pointy end tools, but again we can't afford a separate B team. the only way to increase B team is to cut into A-team. So its not just Russian's that have a "Bleeding wound in Afghanistan" We have a blood, sweat, treasure "leak" that is sacrificing the future for short term er... "gains"? I can't even call them that. but you get the picture



:thumb:
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1378
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post26 Mar 2021, 18:02

mixelflick wrote:You know you bring up some very excellent points...

Can't retire A-10s. (useless against korea, let alone china and Russia. USAF tried and failed to retire these years ago)
Can Retire B-1s (who needs those big nearly Mach 2 strategic bombers with the massive magazine/range anyway?)
Can buy F-15EX even though they cost more to buy and operate than F-35
Can't buy F-35s, theyre too expensive

These are just the latest blunders USAF has made.


A-10 and B-1B aren't blunders.

A-10 for now and probable in future will be only USAF plane which can be call for CAS when you can't use pgm, in such situation powerful 30mm gun isn't replaceable. And when you have lot of them why not use them until they start failing apart.

B-1B? It was nonsense from start, political program and huge waste of money. There isn't ANY reason to develop B-1B when B-2 was in development.

Speed? B-1B is more transonic then supersonic, Mach 2.0 was speed of B-1A, not B-1B. So B-1B is only little more faster then B-2 when use AB with very complex and dead weight swept wings.

On other hand F-15X with cft limit of just Mach 1.4 and with old engines is blunder.

New light fighter which this proposed F-36 isn't is in fact smart decision if it is done correctily. Imagine scaled down F-35 with big delta wing. So F414 engine and lot of fuel, weapon bay for smaller weapons and four AAMs. Something like Lavi was compared to Viper.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3838
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post26 Mar 2021, 18:41

inst wrote:


Vs a F-22 with the new quasi-EODAS installed? Then again, it's in debate as to whether the F-35's minimum (or approximate) RCS is -30 dBsm or -50 dBsm in practical bands.

====

But what's the point of a first look/first shoot advantage when your missiles are simply going to get shot down by laser point defenses? That's more the idea of going to 4th gen + laser pods.

The primary question about trying to seek a cheaper 4th gen alternative to the F-35 is whether it's going to be cheaper at all. Rafale is 110 million USD or environs for flyaway costs. The F-35A is currently around 77 million USD.


You just moved the goal post. We're not comparing F-35s with F-22s. We're comparing F-35s with hypothetical F-36s and other conventional jets. An F-35 with a laser is a harder target to engage than a non-stealthy aircraft, and with a lower unit and mission cost. A laser on a non-stealthy aircraft makes it more survivable than it was, but it doesn't make it a better asset, than a laser on a stealthy aircraft. As for it being debatable about the F-35s stealthiness, it's been stated a number of times that it's stealthier than the F-22, so that discussion is over. So no, there isn't a question about whether it has an RCS of -30 dBsm.
Offline

Fox1

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 227
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2005, 04:16

Unread post27 Mar 2021, 00:21

F-36 Kingsnake? Sounds more like a trouser snake to me. And if we waste our time and money buying that when we can buy the F-35 instead, we're all going to get bent over and shafted by it.
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 809
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post27 Mar 2021, 01:57

F-36 Kingsnake https://hushkit.net/2021/03/17/the-f-36-kingsnake-the-fifth-generation-minus-fighter-usaf-wants/ sounds like someone is trying to use the "better, faster, cheaper" mantra. Uses the same engine as the F-22 Raptor.... are Pratt & Whitney F119 engines even in production anymore? The artists representation looks cool, but I'd be VERY (pleasantly) surprised if this ever goes into production. Especially with the United States (and global) economy going all to Hell thanks to the Coronavirus pandemic. Although my mind keeps going back to how World War II "fixed" the Great Depression (I wonder if this recession is the start of something worse).
Sincerely hope I'm wrong about the F-36 never going into production AND the next Great Depression especially.
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests