China Thread

[85SugarVol]

whatever range is needed to respond to a threat. I am guessing the stand off range during combat needs to be pretty substantial. Getting within 20/50 miles of a land based threat, like those pacific/SCS island chains, and our ability to actually protect the carrier drops dramatically.

200 miles is akin to point blank range in this scenario.

We’re trying to enable carrier based strike from 1000+ miles out.

 

[85SugarVol]

He was not specific about type and said range, not radius. For somebody in the industry he should know the difference,.

Regarding this:

The Stingray can almost double the effective strike range of the U.S. carrier wing. “The MQ-25 will give us the ability to extend the air wing out probably 300 or 400 miles beyond where we typically go,” former Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker told U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings.

This makes it seem to indicate only a current 150-200 mile radius if it doubles with MQ25 to 300-400 miles. I get payload means everything to endurance, but just based on fuel load math one would expect to get maybe 100 miles each for 3-4 fighters or 400-500 miles extra for one jet refuel.

Regardless just a few MQ25 on deck is useful. As I said a lot of fuel is burned on take off and climb out, and these tankers can top off before proceeding on mission, but only an entire wing of them would decently extend the combat radius.


@SpaceCoastVol
I would be curious of your input on this topic. thanks

Lol. You seem kinda salty over this. What’s up?

Specific platform [F-35C] and correctly states radius -

Should an F-35C, for example, operate with a combat radius of 5-to-6 hundred miles, it would need to turn around before reaching its target area if carriers need to project power from beyond the 1,000-mile strike range of China’s anti-ship missiles. This is where the MQ-25 Stingray comes in, as it could enable an F-35C to travel 1,000 miles to its objective over land from off-shore, conduct its mission with sufficient dwell-time, and return to the carrier.

But yea - it’s an either/or.

1 MQ extends 1 F35 500 miles out
1 MQ extends 4 F35 125 miles out

 

[Orangeburst]

Lol. You seem kinda salty over this. What’s up?

Specific platform [F-35C] and correctly states radius -


But yea - it’s an either/or.

1 MQ extends 1 F35 500 miles out
1 MQ extends 4 F35 125 miles out

i am not salty. My whole point is one tanker with 15k is not going to double the range of 3-5 fighters. it is non sense

 

[85SugarVol]

If I had to guess the full load payload of an MQ25 has got to be say 40k pounds. I imagine it is a very efficient aero form, but the longer you haul a heavy load a longer distance, the more fuel it burns itself. From what we are told, it has 15k to give at 500 miles out. Discounting reserves, it probably requires 20k of fuel to haul 500 miles and recover to deck, which is marginally better than the fighter fuel burn rates.

Yea it’s an in air refueling platform. It will burn its own fuel too.

There are some interesting hypothetical scenarios for use though. Especially in the opening salvos of a super high end fight with the Chinese.

 

[85SugarVol]

i am not salty. My whole point is one tanker with 15k is not going to double the range of 3-5 fighters. it is non sense.

No one ever said that.

 

[Orangeburst]

No one ever said that.

stated earlier

The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km). wiki

Well if one were to use the full deck complement of 4-6 tankers to send 4-5 attack aircraft out to 1000 mile distance, it is very poor allocation in a major war. Might as well send cruise missiles or bombers.

 

[85SugarVol]

stated earlier

The Navy's goal for the aircraft is to be able to deliver 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of fuel total to 4 to 6 airplanes at a range of 500 nmi (580 mi; 930 km). wiki

Well if one were to use the full deck complement of 4-6 tankers to send 4-5 attack aircraft out to 1000 mile distance, it is very poor allocation in a major war. Might as well send cruise missiles or bombers.

That’s from your post bro. And I’ve seen the same statement elsewhere.

No one ever said 1 MQ-25 would extend 4 F-35C out 500 miles. It’s either/or -

1 MQ extends 1 F35 500 miles out
1 MQ extends 4 F35 125 miles out


Whether it is good strategy is a matter of opinion, and you shared yours. But it is not a matter of capability.

A pair of MQ’s can indeed extend a pair of F-35’s out to 1000 miles.

 

[Orangeburst]

That’s from your post bro. And I’ve seen the same statement elsewhere.

No one ever said 1 MQ-25 would extend 4 F-35C out 500 miles. It’s either/or -

1 MQ extends 1 F35 500 miles out
1 MQ extends 4 F35 125 miles out


Whether it is good strategy is a matter of opinion, and you shared yours. But it is not a matter of capability.

A pair of MQ’s can indeed extend a pair of F-35’s out to 1000 miles.

i cited wiki..just lazy about it.

We have not been in disagreement, but I have with the proponents. Sounds great on paper per your post, but the usefulness and cost/ benefit ratio is very misleading. I get it, we have to have a few, but billions are being poured into this when we already have older aircraft that can perform this skill. Like you said.. an updated F14 is what they need.
$15B for 72 marginally useful aircraft. Absolutely pathetic.

The U.S. Navy has estimated that the developing and procuring of a fleet of 72 MQ-25 Stingray unmanned aerial refuelling aircraft will cost $US 15.2 billion, nearly $US 2 billion more than the original estimate of $US 13.3 billion.

 

[Orangeburst]

I guess I am a little salty. An oversold fancy plane that looks good on deck, all for a Boeing handout. Ford, LCS, Zumwalt, and on and on, a ****ing gold plated train wreck

 

[85SugarVol]

i cited wiki..just lazy about it.

We have not been in disagreement, but I have with the proponents. Sounds great on paper per your post, but the usefulness and cost/ benefit ratio is very misleading. I get it, we have to have a few, but billions are being poured into this when we already have older aircraft that can perform this skill. Like you said.. an updated F14 is what they need.
$15B for 72 marginally useful aircraft. Absolutely pathetic.

The U.S. Navy has estimated that the developing and procuring of a fleet of 72 MQ-25 Stingray unmanned aerial refuelling aircraft will cost $US 15.2 billion, nearly $US 2 billion more than the original estimate of $US 13.3 billion.

Oh yea, we’ve entered into cost now. We can all get salty about that.

But yea we should have upgraded the Tomcat - it still would be dominant today.
And we should have pursued the Sea Raptor too.

We have no dominant sea-based air superiority fighter right now. On the cusp of major conflict in the Pacific.

Now I’m getting salty…

 

[Orangeburst]

 

[85SugarVol]

I guess I am a little salty. An oversold fancy plane that looks good on deck, all for a Boeing handout. Ford, LCS, Zumwalt, and on and on, a ****ing gold plated train wreck

Finally going to give the LCS some teeth, and make them a viable “dot on the map”.

Putting a US Army Mk 70 launcher on the deck. Can fire Tomahawk & SM-6. Which means it can probably fire SM-3 & Patriot too.

Their combining gear may still fail, but hopefully not before they’re in missile range…

Loading…

news.usni.org

 

[85SugarVol]

New porn released from DoD

B-21 Raider Seen Like Never Before In New Images

We have just been given our first side view of Northrop Grumman's B-21 Raider stealth bomber, an aircraft that remains cloaked in secrecy.

www.thedrive.com

 

[85SugarVol]

The B-21 likely leads the way in any full scale fight with the Chinese.

And effectively shrinks the distance problem carrier strike currently has, by taking out the high end radars.

B-21 Superstealth Bomber First Flight in Days and It Can Beat China's Super Radar and Defenses | NextBigFuture.com

The U.S. Air Force announced today the B-21 Raider has started engine runs as part of its ground test program at Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, California,

www.nextbigfuture.com

 

[newokie03]

Something I think everyone forgets, is the F-35 is not designed to be an air superiority nor an air to ground plane. It is designed to control the battle space. We have F-18s and F-15s for the grunt work. Oh and don't forget about the F-22s for air superiority. I think that when it is all said and done, that the -35s will do what they are designed for and the rest will do their thing.

 

[AM64]

He was not specific about type and said range, not radius. For somebody in the industry he should know the difference,.

Regarding this:

The Stingray can almost double the effective strike range of the U.S. carrier wing. “The MQ-25 will give us the ability to extend the air wing out probably 300 or 400 miles beyond where we typically go,” former Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker told U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings.

This makes it seem to indicate only a current 150-200 mile radius if it doubles with MQ25 to 300-400 miles. I get payload means everything to endurance, but just based on fuel load math one would expect to get maybe 100 miles each for 3-4 fighters or 400-500 miles extra for one jet refuel.

Regardless just a few MQ25 on deck is useful. As I said a lot of fuel is burned on take off and climb out, and these tankers can top off before proceeding on mission, but only an entire wing of them would decently extend the combat radius.


@SpaceCoastVol
I would be curious of your input on this topic. thanks

edit..nm i misread the current range where it says “beyond”

Seems like if you put refueling drones or aircraft on a carrier to refuel planes lacking range, then you also reduce the number of planes that can strike from a carrier. It looks a lot like we are at the point of diminishing returns with carriers if it comes to war with any enemy having a real air defense and capability to attack carriers. Almost like the days of carriers and many other surface ships have passed except as escorts for transports necessary for logistics to keep the rest of the overly complex military hardware working. I'm still trying to figure out the exact use for the F-35. It holds four air to air missiles in a bay, has relatively short range, and if you hang weapons needed to support troops on the ground, it's no longer stealthy.

 

[AM64]

Something I think everyone forgets, is the F-35 is not designed to be an air superiority nor an air to ground plane. It is designed to control the battle space. We have F-18s and F-15s for the grunt work. Oh and don't forget about the F-22s for air superiority. I think that when it is all said and done, that the -35s will do what they are designed for and the rest will do their thing.

Ahhh, but they sold the F-35 as a replacement for the A-10 to provide close air support for troops on the ground.

 

[85SugarVol]

Something I think everyone forgets, is the F-35 is not designed to be an air superiority nor an air to ground plane. It is designed to control the battle space. We have F-18s and F-15s for the grunt work. Oh and don't forget about the F-22s for air superiority. I think that when it is all said and done, that the -35s will do what they are designed for and the rest will do their thing.

One of the bigger disservices to F-35 platform was ever referring to it as a “fighter”.
It’s not a fighter. It’s a quarterback, or an “aerial gateway” as is en vogue right now.

It does what it was designed to do very well.

Problem with the F-18 is that it is short and slow. An ok all around utility craft, I guess.

The F-35 overhead, controlling the battle space, with a pair of F-15 screaming in for the kinetic kill is a very fine pairing.

But we don’t have a Sea Eagle
And we don’t have a Sea Raptor

We don’t have anything that can “turn and burn”, deliver high speed kinetic kills at range, on our carriers today.

We did/should/could. But we don’t…

 

[85SugarVol]

Seems like if you put refueling drones or aircraft on a carrier to refuel planes lacking range, then you also reduce the number of planes that can strike from a carrier. It looks a lot like we are at the point of diminishing returns with carriers if it comes to war with any enemy having a real air defense and capability to attack carriers. Almost like the days of carriers and many other surface ships have passed except as escorts for transports necessary for logistics to keep the rest of the overly complex military hardware working. I'm still trying to figure out the exact use for the F-35. It holds four air to air missiles in a bay, has relatively short range, and if you hang weapons needed to support troops on the ground, it's no longer stealthy.

The F-35 should hardly ever fire a weapon in its primary mission. Save for anti-radar missiles I guess.

 

[Orangeburst]

China, Russia taking ‘batting practice’ in air intercepts of aging US aircraft, general says

Aggressive maneuvers underscore diminishing U.S. advantage, Air Combat Command leader said.

www.defenseone.com

Nothing more pathetic than the Pentagon complaining about its capabilities. They put themselves in this position..their fault. Should be time to get rid of th3 people and processes that put us in this position. Just exactly what has the AF received hardware wise in last 20 years other than a few hundred F35? Where did all the money go?
Just like the USN.

Recapitalization of fighters, bombers, ICBM, AWAC, tankers..all at once, GTFO

 

[85SugarVol]

China, Russia taking ‘batting practice’ in air intercepts of aging US aircraft, general says

Aggressive maneuvers underscore diminishing U.S. advantage, Air Combat Command leader said.

www.defenseone.com

Nothing more pathetic than the Pentagon complaining about its capabilities. They put themselves in this position..their fault. Should be time to get rid of th3 people and processes that put us in this position. Just exactly what has the AF received hardware wise in last 20 years other than a few hundred F35? Where did all the money go?
Just like the USN.

Recapitalization of fighters, bombers, ICBM, AWAC, tankers..all at once, GTFO

The Virginia’s are good.
The Ford’s are going to be good.
Hopefully the Frigate and F-XX will be good.

The LCS was bad.
The Zumwalt was bad.
Hopefully they are successfully re-fitted.

 

[Orangeburst]

The Virginia’s are good.
The Ford’s are going to be good.
Hopefully the Frigate and F-XX will be good.

The LCS was bad.
The Zumwalt was bad.
Hopefully they are successfully re-fitted.

well this is encouraging..if 5hey can get a hypersonic missile. The 155 guns have been a disaster
4 tubes ie 12 missiles
really what is the point..just land base them

US Navy Begins Upgrading Zumwalt Destroyer With Hypersonic Weapons

The guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt arrived at Ingalls Shipbuilding, Mississippi, last week to be upgraded with hypersonic weapons.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[85SugarVol]

well this is encouraging..if 5hey can get a hypersonic missile. The 155 guns have been a disaster
4 tubes ie 12 missiles
really what is the point..just land base them

US Navy Begins Upgrading Zumwalt Destroyer With Hypersonic Weapons

The guided-missile destroyer USS Zumwalt arrived at Ingalls Shipbuilding, Mississippi, last week to be upgraded with hypersonic weapons.

www.thedefensepost.com

Oh yea. They’ve already started the work.

The Zumwalts are getting the CPS boost glide hypersonic.

the Prompt Strike has a 2000 mile range, so it would be limited as land based. Why not put it on a stealthy ship out at sea.

It’s another “dot on the map”.

 

[85SugarVol]

Tomahawks, SM’s, and NSM’s for the LCS
Hypersonics for the Zumwalts

Lemons into lemonade if they can integrate it all successfully, and get it to work.

More “dots on the map”.

 

[Orangeburst]

Tomahawks, SM’s, and NSM’s for the LCS
Hypersonics for the Zumwalts

Lemons into lemonade if they can integrate it all successfully, and get it to work.

More “dots on the map”.

$22B program, not even including upgrade costs and installation of several key features that have been omitted, for 3 ships searching for a mission. A whopping 36 missiles that could be fired from islands or even longer range weapons from further out.

Might as well get some use out of the hulls. Between this, $36B LCS, $15B MQ25, $13B carrier, years of procurement budgets, say $86B, with little to show for it and marginal value.

I’ll quit my beeching