Well, the F-15 and F-16 are staying on for many years to come for a reason. It's not just the much higher costs of the F-35. How they might be used is to go ahead of the F-15's, strike some targets and identify for the F-15s where they can bring their much heavier load to bear. Even with pylons used, it has a lower payload than the F-15, and is ludicrously too expensive to do the A-10 missions. In low threat environments, you dont use a fully loaded F-35, you use a turboprop like the A-29 or AT-6 Wolverine or you use the A-10. Ive seen the F-35 rated as slightly superior to the F-16V or Gripen-E in air to air combat. But is blown away by the F-22. Adding too many roles makes it hard for it to be the best at anything. One area is situational awareness. Amazing information networking gives unprecedented awareness for the pilot. It is almost certainly No 1 in the world in that area. Networked with legacy platforms is certainly a useful role, but we paid an historically ginormous sum for that. And to beat systems like the S-400 that might not be nearly so fierce as advertised.
The F-15E requires 2 pilots for 23,000 lb (10,400 kg) of external fuel and ordnance The F-35 requires 1 pilot for 18,000 pounds (8,200 kg) total weapons payload As the F-15E ages out and gets replaced, it'll be filled in by the F-35 Same with F-16, it's going to get replaced. https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/03/03/fort-worth-lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jet/ We're on F-35 #500 and increasing. As for costs, the F-35 program has been meeting the costs and bringing them down with each new lot. http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=32553&mode=view http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=32552&mode=view Modern A-10's were running away and getting grounded the moment they were being downed by SAM's. We had to send in other aircraft to take out Air Defense. (Don't forget that the A-10's role originally was to clean up tanks in the Fulda Gap). It was never designed for the SEAD mission. It's just designed for Close Air Support and Anti-Ground Armor units. As for A-29 / AT-6, yeah that's the best / most cost effective tool to deal with insurgents who have no dominion over the air. It's taken our military this long to pivot, but pivot we are. F-22 vs F-35 would be a hard match given that F-35 has newer tech and is more Situationally Aware. It's not going to be easy. But that's not a scenario we're too worried about since we own both. F-35 vs China's newest Stealth Fighters is what we're worried about. Turkey is basically kicked out of the F-35 program since they won't obey us by not collabing with Russian Air Defense and since their Take Over. The F-35 will eat the F-16/Gripen-E in Air to Air combat. If you want to develop brand new technologies and go from what was effectively Dumb Phone level tech in Aircraft to SmartPhone level tech in Aircraft, you have to pay the R&D price. And it's well worth it to maintain technical superiority over you adversaries. But anyways, we've derailed the topic long enough. Back to StarShip designs. If you want to continue our modern military talk. I'm registered under the same Handle on this forum: http://www.f-16.net/forum/index.php
I wish we had that philosophy for self-propelled artillery because until a (proposed but who knows) replacement comes into service later in this decade the U.S. Army is still firing the aging M109 system and has now upgraded from the A6 variant to the A7. It's a great SP artillery system, don't get me wrong, but when Germany and other European armies use a faster autoloader system with fewer personnel needed to run the weapon and similar or even greater range and we're still cancelling new SP howitzers because of cost overruns (first Crusader and then the NLOS system) and being forced to update a chassis that dates back to the 1960s and requires extra manpower because we're too stubborn a military establishment to use autoloaders on self-propelled artillery we're going to be lagging behind. It's high time we get serious and give our troops the most advanced and easiest-to-manage artillery on tracks or wheels.
A-10s are staying for now. And aside from new F-15s to be procured (70-80 IIRC), we are looking at existing and upgraded F- 15s thru the 2030s and F-16s. Including single seat F-15s. Eventually they will be replaced, but not for many years. The F-35 is not a good replacement. It's cost is far too high and it's load too small for that high cost. The total program to date is vastly beyond it's value. Maybe if the S-400 really would make mincemeat out of Generation 4.5 legacy platforms, maybe it would have been worth the insane costs. But there is no evidence to support that. Alot of F-35s would go down to the F-16V or Gripen E. It is nowhere near the F-22 in air to air. To call it 2nd to the F-22? At BVR, it probably is close. A very, very distant 2nd otherwise. It would be a turkey shoot to send F-35s against the F-22. If only they could. Then we could retire the even more expensive F-22. But alas, the Master of None is retiring other aircraft at a very slow rate indeed.
If you want to continue this, we can do it on F-16.net. otherwise let's get back on topic. You can state whatever you want, but you haven't convinced me of squat.
Another discussion we can have on F-16.net A dedicated military forum. Let's get back to Star Trek StarShip design.
Who exactly are they supposed to dogfight..? Some not-existent Air Force of some country locked in a civil war..? Because if we are talking about China or Russia, I believe that nuclear missiles will begin to fly before any pilot can enjoy his/her long-dreamed "dogfight"...
Nor me I am afraid. You can be gung ho about this money pit if you like, but another colossal boondoggle if you ask me. Back on topic: they had only one ship type in Picard finale for Fed Fleet for the same reason that they bought stock footage from Shutterstock. To save money. There are dozens of ship types and classes counting the Navy, CG and Sealift. Over 50 airframe types for the USAF, not including Navy-CG-USMC-Army aviation. The idea of one or two or a small handful of types for ANY air, sea or space fleet is nonsense.
If they launch even 1 Nuke, THEY'RE DEAD. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). So it's better to let planes fight each other than nukes. If you want to continue off-topic, we can do it on F-16.net. Back onto Star Trek StarShip Designs.
Well, the Chinese and Russian Air Forces are who people in the West generally mean when they talk about higher end adversaries, and their hardware. We will not be fighting the RAF, Luftwaffe or French Air Force outside of war games most likely. From the Russians, the S-300, S-400, Pantsir air defence systems, SU-30, SU-27, MiG-29, MiG-35 and other types would have to be dealt with. I doubt nukes would fly too quickly. If China vaporized a US Carrier Group with a nuke, the nuclear retaliation would be immediate. Anyway, why this was relevant is to show that the idea of significantly reducing the number of types and classes of ships/aircraft thru multi-role platforms has significant limits. Too many roles to fill, lots of competing designs to fill them and ever increasing costs and tradeoffs to be made when trying to squeeze too many of those roles into too few platforms.
Can we get back to the Trek ship design? If I can't get a response to my artillery example I'd rather we stick to the topic of the thread. At least be consistent with the "let's stick to the topic" advice. My take: Starfleet would probably have numerous classes of armed ship in an armada of this size and not just one or two with minor differences. The last time we saw a massing of Starfleet ships this repetitive and uniform in design was during the M5 wargames in "The Ultimate Computer(TOS)." Now I can see Riker requesting many of a specific class to get a point across and intimidate an opponent...but THAT many of one class? Ehhhhhhh.
We agree there is a limit, up to a point, based on roles that you can fulfill. But the concept of "Multi-Role" ___ is dominant in many modern Air Forces, and that isn't going away any time soon. But even "Multi-Role" will have limits. The F-18 Super Hornets that are tankers on our carriers are going to get replaced by dedicated drones to do that job. Boeings MQ-25A will do that job nicely as a flying gas tank. Then the F-18 Super Hornets will get entirely replaced by the F-35C over time. EA-18G's will still be there because that's a dedicated role on the ole SuperHornet AirFrame. C-2 Greyhound will still be around to deliver cargo. E-2 Hawkeye will still remain Eyes/Ears of the fleet. So in the USNavy, there will be minimum of 4x Fixed Wing Aircraft Models on the flight decks. Rotary Aircraft will be it's own thing. Even StarFleet will have various Shuttle Types and Star Fighters for the various roles they need to fulfill.
What is there to say about artillery, I agree with you that we need Auto-Loaders, but only one heavy Artillery/Tank vehicle in the US Army has an Auto-Loader, the other heavy Artillery vehicles / Tanks aren't getting any. But anyways, let's continue BACK ONTO TOPIC! I think Riker gathered what he could to make a point, they were probably all ships in the middle of training / shake down and they got drafted into this emergency situation.
And I can buy they're not large starships by 24th century standards. Possibly Constitution- or Intrepid-class in length if not smaller.
From what we've seen on screen, they look only slightly larger than the Intrepid Class. But given all the Tech upgrades + Time for tech to Improve + that massive Volume of 200+ StarFleet ships of the same/similar type. DAMN!!! Riker made quite the case to lead one of the largest rescue task forces for his mentor/friend. Talk about a great "Big Damn Heroes" moment.
Anything could have been in there, the Zheng He is supposed to be there but I don't think we actually saw it from the outside which would actually make perfect sense, why advertise which ship the ranking officer is on if you don't have to, in fact why not keep that ship invisible to the enemy so there is no way it can be targeted at all. That way it can then show itself if the situation requires it for a bit more shock and awe, especially if its a big heavy hitter like an Odyssey class. Just think of the effect on the General if a 1000m Odyssey class or equivalent dropped cloak right in front of her.
They could be anywhere from 400-500m long with fewer decks due to the lack of deflector dish, they all have a cutout at the front of the saucer which could be the deflector. Very sleek and fast by the looks of it, mass produced warships made up of two or three classes that look very similar, mostly just the nacelles and bridge modules separating them from what I could see, I would expect them all to have the same armaments but its possible that some could have more long range weapons and others more close range. One thing I can say is that none of those ships we see in episode 10 match the outline of the Ibn Majid, which is why I don't think we actually saw Rikers ship, Chabon may be keeping that reveal for S2.
I would advise you to look into the US Army Strategic Fires program. The work is toward not only Rocket artillery with 100s of miles range, but with shells up to 1,000 miles range. The M109 is about 18-20 miles range. Revolutionary breakthroughs are on the table.
Yes, it is (multirole), but I do not think the we will see more in the way of the F-35. The Navy meanwhile has it's own issues with this. The Navy was sold on low manning and modular ship design for some years. Both were amazingly costly examples of BS. If you count in the roles of the USN, MSC and USCG, it is hard to significantly reduce the number of ship types.
There would be numerous types. ST:P saved on CGI money with what they did. Though there are legitimate arguments on size of platform. Since we know an 1,800 ton air independent propulsion coastal sub can sink a 100,000 ton carrier as can a much smaller 20-30 ton fighter, there is concern about building huge ships. Much of SciFi is enamored of the DREADNOUGHT! That name is so cool. And look at all those BIG GUNS. And then it gets taken out by a quiet 2000 ton sub or a 24 ton fighter. It's a balanced debate.