PDA

View Full Version : F22/f35


fltlt
6th Apr 2009, 19:21
Well, the writings on the wall:

http://news.aol.com/article/defense-chief-proposes-weapons-cuts/416028?cid=12 (http://news.aol.com/article/defense-chief-proposes-weapons-cuts/416028?cid=12)[/font]

Occasional Aviator
6th Apr 2009, 20:11
And the US101 too...

GreenKnight121
6th Apr 2009, 23:11
You might want to correct your title... the F-35 is getting more money, not less.


Some programs would grow.


Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet. That program could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes.

Squirrel 41
6th Apr 2009, 23:42
Indeed, VH-71A to bite the dust on the basis of this.

The real question is whether the US will kill F-35B, and focus only on the USAF F-35A and the USN F-35C - this could save some serious cash. It would also force the UK to convert the QEII class of CV to CTOL, so that it can be more useful if it ever enters service.

Pls, pls, pls kill the F-35B - and buy off the Brits with funding the GE/RR F-136
engine programme.

S41

GreenKnight121
7th Apr 2009, 00:03
Not a chance of killing F-35B!

Cancel the primary variant for the only level 1 partner (UK)?

The variant Italy is planning to make half of its buy... and just built a ship specifically for?

And the variant Spain just built a ship with the capability for?

Not to mention the ONLY variant the USMC wants... and the USMC has a very great influence in Congress?

There are scheduled to be more B variants built altogether (and for at least 4 nations) than C variants (for only 1 nation).

The F-35C has a far greater chance of being canceled than the F-35B!

Some people like to stick to their fantasies regardless of reality, it seems.

ProM
7th Apr 2009, 08:31
Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states also would be scaled back

Just after the N Korea launch?
That might be a tough sell

NutLoose
7th Apr 2009, 11:28
Fox News are reporting the US Defence Secretary Gates has cancelled the F-22 program after the next four aircraft are completed. Also cancelled is a lightweight tank for the Army.

OFBSLF
7th Apr 2009, 13:14
He should have called for canceling the V22 as well.

Ronald Reagan
7th Apr 2009, 13:26
F-22 is the best combat aircraft ever and to cancel it is insane. The F-35 is pretty crap and is nothing compared with the Raptor. However I would consider the B could be killed off! After all the UK is only going to get 66 which is a waste of time! So much for the 150 odd we were 'supposed' to get!
It would be a shame to lose USMC fixed wing when the Harrier is retired but what else could we do!? We cannot afford to lose the US Navy and its real carriers!
I guess this goes to show what a useless fool Obama is. A man with totally no experience being put in the job! Now he seems to want to get rid of nukes! Assuming the whole world did ditch nukes and one day we face an asteroid impact or even the fact that someone like Russia or China had hung onto a dozen warheads or so it could make things interesting! If only McCain had won! God forbid but I think even President Sarah Palin would have been better than this!

barnstormer1968
7th Apr 2009, 13:33
It is the seventh of April isn't it, and not the first?

hulahoop7
7th Apr 2009, 13:36
Obama has sold us out! The asteriods are waiting for us to drop our guard. But I've got my gun under my bed, and if they come knocking they'd better be waving white flags.

ProM
7th Apr 2009, 13:59
You're right Ronald. Fancy you yanks putting someone in the Whitehouse with NO experience at all of nuking asteroids.

Obviously you should have elected Bruce Willis

Ronald Reagan
7th Apr 2009, 14:06
Asteroid/comet impact is a real threat! A threat which unlike the terrorist issue could actually wipe us all out and possibly even all life on the whole planet! Nuclear weapons are one of a few methods we could use to destroy/alter the course of an approaching object with. There are other methods but many of these would take years or decades to work. If we were to discover an obect at short notice then the nuke option would possibly be our best and only option available. Or we could sit back and let it hit!

Flap62
7th Apr 2009, 14:15
This should be fun!

hulahoop7
7th Apr 2009, 14:17
6% of GDP is a lot of money Ronald. Especially when you're facing the current economic problems.

Ronald Reagan
7th Apr 2009, 15:34
Indeed it is a lot of money. But I would imagine a 10 to 20 year war in Afghanistan which we probably will not ever win is going to be even more costly! How long can we stay there? I guess until someone runs for office who will remove our troops! Please don't get me wrong I fully support our troops and detest the enemy. While we are there the troops deserve every bit of kit we can afford. Though probably best to leave asap! But in this capitalist world where only money matters can we really win? Also how do we define winning? Our leaders also assume we are not going to face any other coflicts other than Afghanistan! Now going by the track record of how crap our government has been in almost every respect and the same can be said of current and past American administrations please forgive me if I don't trust their judgement or word on any issue!

Squirrel 41
7th Apr 2009, 15:36
GK121

As has been rehashed around here ad infinitum, the issue is that F-35B carries two-thirds the bombload half the range of the F-35C, or alternatively half the bombload two-thirds the range of F-35C. Dave-B can't carry the largest bombs internally, and it has bring back "issues", hence the UK interest in RVLs to meet key user requirements.

So, if you're in the Administration, then you need to make difficult choices - and though I appreciate that the Marine Expeditionary Unit concept currently relies on organic AV-8Bs - I would ask when an MEU went ashore in a combat role without fast air off a CVN. And when would you do it in future?

Personally, I don't see the case for it, and would give the USMC F-35Cs off CVNs as they currently fly F-18C/D. IMHO, the UK would jump at a deal swapping the long-term funding of the F-136 engine for Dave-B, and I can't imagine that the US will determine its procurement decisions on possible future purchases of small numbers of Dave-B by Spain and Italy (you may also add Thailand and Israel, too).

But then it's not my decision. The Dave-B is a nice idea, but it's not as useful as Dave-C; with the economy, it's time to bin it. I would continue with F-22 procurement, however.

S41

ProM
7th Apr 2009, 15:46
This should be fun!

Perhaps Flap62, but I don't think I have the energy

Double Zero
7th Apr 2009, 18:39
Shirley,

The F-35 B is a lot more versatile, though an advanced Harrier ( as now with Sniper ) would seem quite up to the job ?

If the UK can suddenly come up with £400 Billion to save bankers - a rhyming slang if ever I heard one - what's the snag with £ 4 Billion for a couple of carriers, + the F-35B could use assault ships ?

As for shooting asteroids a la Hollywood, isn't that asking a bit much of any aircraft including the supposedly banned F-15 ASAT, while there are other systems which could ( hopefully ) do the job !

FNU_SNU
7th Apr 2009, 19:22
Would a nuke detonated in space have less of an effect though? In a vacuum I'm assuming you wouldn't get the overpressure/vacuum and air rushing back in as there is no air anyway?

FOG
7th Apr 2009, 19:26
Squirrel,

No Marine is allowed to even speculate on getting any F-35Cs let alone make a case for that option despite aircraft life issues between Harrier and Hornet. Not much notice nor many comments on the fact that the San Diego crash Hornet was a D and traps was about all it had left in it and that was all that it could be used for.

Actually the Harrier has deployed in combat from gators with no CVNs in the vicinity. Gators can travel and turn a few gator squares without drawing any attention while everyone pays attention to CVNs. The less press the better. Probably do it again when gator air will meet the requirement(s).

S/F, FOG

Henry_Harris
7th Apr 2009, 22:15
Going back to the earlier point, would nuking asteroids help? As was mentioned earlier, in a vacuum you wouldn't get the added affect of air pressure fluctuation would you? Does the same apply for the use of thermobaric weapons and 'conventional' cruise missiles or ICBM's? Although here obvious problems with range and flight patterns and angles occur...

If, per chance, an asteroid did strike Earth. Would we notice? Millions of asteroids must have impacted the earth over the billions of centuries. After all, without asteroids the earth wouldn't have had the majority of the water it does now. And in recent centuries, lumps of 'space rock' are continually colliding with the Earth. However if you are talking about an Asteroid with the magnitude and capability to change the way we live on Earth, would nuclear weapons be of any use? Or even have an affect, after all this isn't futurama... :=

Please would someone with more 'knowledge' or 'experience' clear some of these questions up for me? :confused:

Ronald Reagan
7th Apr 2009, 22:28
I am interested in this to. From what I can gather some of the other options include using lasers to push the asteroid away, attaching a solar sail, attaching low powered rocket to adjust its course and there are others. These are all so long term and may not work. I have seen scientists mention using nukes but the results will depend greatly upon the material the object is made from. We could turn one large object into many smaller objects and be hit by a kind of 'shot gun blast'! However we could then nuke the swarm of smaller objects. Being hit by several small 'city killers' is still better than being hit by the 'doomsday rock' though. The fatal error in the doomsday movies is we only fire one nuke and one rocket! When it fails we do nothing! We may have to be prepared to fire several nukes at it. Possibly either impacting with the object or near it to try and push it off course. The nuclear option is not the only option but would be the entire planets only hope for an object discovered in the short to medium term. What fun if all nukes had been destroyed!
I to would like an experts opinion on the effects of a nuclear explosion in space. I hope the boys in charge look into these issues! Sadly I imagine they only think about the next 5 years and winning votes! The number one issue to many is the economy but the topic here is of far more importance!

Herc-u-lease
7th Apr 2009, 22:46
I thought this was about F22/F35. Instead I seem to be reading the rejected plots to Armageddon:confused:

vikingdriver
8th Apr 2009, 00:13
If kinetic energy is equal to 1/2 mass * velocity squared, and the mass is a very large lump of rock of god knows what weight, or even more importantly, goodness knows what density relative to its size, and its impact velocity is pretty large (which is a given for any asteroid/celestial object that makes contact with the earths surface) then the resulting impact is going to have a mildy irritating impact on the planets population to say the least.

Now think about how a solar sail, or impulse engine, or rocket or any other of our means of propulsion in space is going to effect said object and its trajectory in space.

Just to give some of you a clue, Force = Mass * Acceleration, and our solar system, and our planets', gravity well will not be helping us, and solar sails and impulse engines take a long time to get going.

fltlt
8th Apr 2009, 04:10
Mods, can I officially request you withdraw this thread? Asteroids and nukes have absolutely nothing to do with my original post. I am sure somewhere on this internet thingy there has to be a startrek board.

diginagain
8th Apr 2009, 04:19
Mods, can I officially request you withdraw this thread? Asteroids and nukes have absolutely nothing to do with my original post. I am sure somewhere on this internet thingy there has to be a startrek board.

If you go to your original post, you can delete it. The whole thread then magically disappears, as if smothered by a Klingon cloaking-device.

Its (cyber)space, Jim.

But not as we know it.

spectre150
8th Apr 2009, 08:01
Asteroid threat! What does that have to do with the cancellation of F-22! Interesting debate on the various F-35 models! Maybe the asteroid distraction, and all its associated exclamation marks, could be taken elsewhere!

Navy_Adversary
8th Apr 2009, 08:42
Forget the new carriers and F-35, spend the dosh on the guys in Afghanistan.

We could "go halves" with the US Navy 'Norfolk based ' carriers and do a job share now the 'two presidents' are big buddies.

Hang on, what's that I can see off Spithead? That was quick :cool:

Tourist
8th Apr 2009, 10:09
For the trekkies

How to save the world from an asteroid impact - space - 25 March 2009 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127015.600-how-to-save-the-world-from-an-asteroid-impact.html)

brickhistory
8th Apr 2009, 10:37
Maybe we could heave an F-35 (either flavor) at one of those sky rocks?







And just for the record, I'm a doctor, dammit, not an astrophysicist...

Squirrel 41
8th Apr 2009, 10:55
FOG,

Thanks for your input - very interesting. I'd not heard about the Marines going in unaccompanied, and if possible would welcome some more detail. I'm not surprised that the Marines are forbidden from thinking / discussing end of the F-35B - but if I were OC USMC I'd say the same thing - but this doesn't mean that the political leadership ought not to be thinking about it.

Here's a link to Sec Gates' remarks: DefenseLink News Transcript: DoD News Briefing With Secretary Gates From The Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4396)

Gutsy stuff in terms of taking on vested interests: but no word on canceling F-35B. However, F-22 goes and C-17 production stops, too.

S41

FOG
8th Apr 2009, 15:47
Squirrel,

The USMC definitely wants and needs the F-35 as the Hornets are being used up quite rapidly. The discussion is best over some tequila (Scotch is reserved for calming enjoyable times so…).

USMC works around the globe in small detachments quite often, just less advertised than our counterparts in other services. The Harriers off gators attached to MEUs have been used at least a couple of times. Their use has not been denied just not noticed nor advertised. Another discussion best left face to face but with some Scotch (Talisker or Laguvalin) and a Camacho 11/18.

S/F, FOG

Flap62
8th Apr 2009, 16:57
Did initial US involvement in Somalia have the full shooting match or was it cobras and Harriers?

Guzlin Adnams
8th Apr 2009, 22:00
FOG....and a little highland water I hope.

Flugplatz
8th Apr 2009, 22:21
Surely this is an argument for more F35s? maybe designated F35D... or F35 AS (for Asteriod).
Presumably piloted by the USMC... Or the RAF based out of their Q sheds? (probably wouldn't be called out that often but would make a change from the North Sea type intercepts)

Rather reminds me of the 'Skylab' protection hats they were selling in Oz when it was due to re-enter way-back-when.

Flug

LowObservable
9th Apr 2009, 15:47
FOG...

The question is whether the things that Harriers/Gators have been used for will be done much better (or even as well) by a much bigger and more expensive machine that offers supersonic speed and stealth. In CAS, for instance, those qualities make as much sense as attaching a mowing deck to your Porsche 911 when you want to cut the grass.

When you do need those qualities, the CV will be present.

FOG
9th Apr 2009, 16:25
Flaps,

Somalia limits were political. Not very many folks were versed let alone worked on urban CAS during the Somalia time period. The MEU had Harriers and Marine pilots versed in urban CAS but from my understanding the briefers higher up the food chain were unfamiliar with urban CAS and thus severe limits were placed upon the use of the Harriers.

Guzlin,

Knuckle draggers enjoy Scotch neat.

LO,

The only people who think the Harrier has performance equal to a Hornet (let alone a F-35) are the Harrier bubbas. Having said that there places for the gators. Keeping a CVN off of the coast of XXX that has a MEU doesn't make much sense and the USN has not done it.

In Somalia a CV would have been a large negative. CAS, especially urban CAS is not deep strike or battle field interdiction. Using planes and crews untrained for CAS except notionally to support ground forces in an urban environment is a recipe for disaster of both blue and red.

A CV draws more attention. LO, supersonic, and lots of ordnance at 15-20 minutes often means less than 4 mk 82 equivalents at 5-10 minutes. That is if a CVN is in the area.

S/F, FOG

orca
9th Apr 2009, 20:25
Careful mate, you're actually more likely to inadvertantly release three criminals from outer space who would then be free to use their superhuman powers on earth...unless of course some bloke who got changed in the wrong order could stop them.

Squirrel 41
9th Apr 2009, 23:13
Shhh.... you mustn't talk about the AA (Anti-Asteroid) capability of Dave.... the asteriods probably read Pprune too, and will adjust their tactics.....

Anyway, back to the sideshow of the actual debate.

FOG,

Thanks for you courteous and informed responses - always a pleasure. Very interesting on the Somalia situation, but this goes to the heart of the matter. With the right kit (e.g. F-18s currently doing urban CAS) and more importantly, the right training, it must be possible for Dave-C to adequately do the Marines' job - accepting that you need to send a CVN.

Hence my question of without Somalia (which to the cynical outsider looked like a benefit concert for the USMC in its' initial stages), where has an MEU required fast air and only had organic AV-8Bs? This is my point - if the answer is that there haven't been any in which a CVN wasn't - or couldn't - have been available, then I guess I'd be more sympathetic. But unless there are some (in fact, quite a lot), then I'd still come down on binning Dave-B on the grounds of cost.

(And then the RN can get Dave-C, too! Hurrah! ;) )

S41

West Coast
10th Apr 2009, 01:24
The mention of Somalia...

One must also remember that MEU's rarely venture into situations that need more than thier organic composition. One comes to mind, the NEO evac from Mogadishu in 1990. While the forces were from a MEB, the size of the force closely resembled a MEU in capability and function.


Dave-C to adequately do the Marines' job - accepting that you need to send a CVN.

Politics rather than mission needs would drive the decision to involve a CVN and thus determine the capabilities or limitations of said force. The Navy also might not be as understanding of one of it's larger moveable airports being tasked to support the Marines. One must remember the Navy has a hard time remembering what the A in F/A-18 stands for.

FOG
10th Apr 2009, 19:50
Squirrel,

Including Somalia I can think of support in a couple of other NEOs and one other use that the Harrier was the only player.

There are multiple reasons against CVN use. When TacAir integration was started Marines would show up (for boat squadron duty) and have CAS training relegated to low priority. Currently there is more "CAS" training for all I'd caveat that to be dropping ordnance in close proximity to friendly forces under current circumstances.

The training priority for the CVN/CAG is OCA/DCA for obvious reasons. How much are going to get for training (initial, currency, and proficiency) to include additional personnel to turn wrenches?

The "C" in of itself is a more capable airplane in all areas once airborne. It has it's own additional costs though; the larger CVN and battle group, further back from shore so ready five alerts are further away in time when the grunt needs help, tanking from land may not help and brings it's own set of political problems. When you have 4-12 men in a third world country which is your preferred option for support 1) B in 5-10 minutes or 2) C in 20-30?

The other practical point of a CVN versus a gator is that everyone watches the CVN and where they are parked while not paying attention to the gators. The lack of media attention and thus political pressure has allowed fixed wing usage.

I'd be the last to argue that the USMC should get B before the C. I am going to wade into assuming knowledge of the British situation but my quick take is that a CV(N) a little larger than the French with F-35C seems to make more sense.

In the end I think it will be political advantage over cost/capability, similar to the tanker replacement for the USAF; Democrat = Boeing (unions + overseas support of China), and Republican = Airbus (non-union + France has been helping on GWOT outside of Iraq and lots of help other places).

S/F, FOG

Squirrel 41
10th Apr 2009, 20:49
FOG,

Many thanks for the reply - interesting. The UK position is in the eyes of many who know about such things, absurd. The new UK carriers (CV(Future)- hence CV(F), a conventional design) are at 65k tons more than big enough to take the Dave-C, and indeed are designed to be convertible between STOVL and CTOL operations (ie, requiring a major refit, but in principle able to do it). So the UK could - and in my view should - take the -C, and in the process acquire E-2D to provide meaningful AWACS and strike coordination.

I completely accept the point of -Cs being 10 mins further away and not principally tasked with your CAS mission is always going to be less attractive than fellow grunts flying -Bs. However, the question is one of cost: is the US prepared in these difficult economic times, to continue to pay for the flex of the -B in order to continue to provide the USMC with organic CAS? I'd have thought that this is a really difficult call to make given some of the things that are being cut, especially as there appear to be a tiny number of combat - rather than NEO - interventions that require an MEU to operate alone.

Time - and politicking in DC - will doubtless tell!

Cheers,

S41

Finnpog
10th Apr 2009, 22:48
It's late a night and I am feeling creative - this idea must have been done to death a million times but...

Having seen how the Sukhoi Su-33 launches from the Russian carriers without a catapult, just brute force and a ski ramp - I wonder whether the LHAs & LHDs could be adapted (together with arrester gear) so that the USMC could take the Dave-C?

In design, they have a family resemblance to the RNs 'Through Deck Cruisers' (remember the dodge to not call them aircraft carriers) - no angled flight deck though so I guess they would be launching OR recovering but not both.

Having looked at some of the thrust to weight ratios put forward about the F-35, they are not a million miles away from the Sukhoi.

LowObservable
11th Apr 2009, 13:29
My read on what emerges here is that a lower-profile, closer-inshore capability than the CV has its uses, particularly for CAS and related operations (like ISR in support of ground forces).

However, Dave-B represents a very large investment in stealth and supersonic speed, neither of which is very useful for CAS, when you'd rather have payload, persistence and connectivity.

glad rag
11th Apr 2009, 18:48
That was a very interesting post, -C and "embedded" AWACS surely makes a LOT of sense!

West Coast
12th Apr 2009, 03:32
LO hit on an important point. Where on the CVN do they keep the Marines, the landing craft, LCAC's, AAV's, supporting facilities, expanded medical facilities, etc?

Answer: On the amphibious assault ship trailing the CVN.

No trading a CVN for its smaller brethren without a loss of capability.

ORAC
14th Apr 2009, 10:16
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Monday endorsed the Pentagon in its plan to end production of Lockheed Martin Corp's top-of-the-line F-22 fighter jets after having pushed to buy more for years.

"This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and General Norton Schwartz, the service's top uniformed officer, wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Like the F-22 Raptor, Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is designed to avoid detection by radar, although it would not fly as fast or as high. The multi-role F-35 is being co-developed with eight countries in three models with an eye to achieving economies of scale.

Donley and Schwartz reversed previous positions by the Air Force, saying the time had come to stop buying the F-22.

"That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget," they wrote, endorsing plans announced April 6 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to cap the F-22 fleet at 187.

Lockheed Martin stopped short of saying whether it would give up its lobbying effort to keep the F-22 production line going. Key F-22 subcontractors include Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp and United Technologies Corp's Pratt & Whitney unit, which supplies the engines.

FOG
14th Apr 2009, 17:32
Squirrel,

At 65K tons the "C" is probably a better fit and looks to be a CV vice a gator (amphibious assault ships) in the 40K ton class that the Harriers (and "B") will fly off of.

I think if does make economic and operational sense. The Amphibious Ready Group can stay closer in (remain on location) while the CVBG stays further out or goes away for other missions. It is rare for a CVBG to conduct a NEO; it is usually an ARG as that is where the resident training and expertise lies.

A very added benefit that is hard for bean counters to understand are the positive effects of the CAS, rotary wing, and ground combat element working/messing/PTing together.
It shows up in combat. When the USMC was in Somalia we conducted raids with little drama. When we took over Anbar both the USA and USAF went on record stating that we would not be able to operate fixed wing aircraft out of either Al Assad or TQ for a couple of years.

On the politics/media front I believe that the media/politicians would pay attention to the location of either your CV or gator while they ignore our gators for the most part. Being ignored by the media and politicians can be very beneficial most of the time.

S/F, FOG

KiloB
14th Apr 2009, 18:13
Dave 'B' would appear to be a further compromised version of a Design which is already compromised (Weight, Frontal-Area & Aerodynamics) in the pursuit of 'stealth'.

With these drawbacks, how valuable an A/C would it be if the march of technology removed the stealth advantage?

I have no access to such info, but I would not be surprised to discover that even now two (linked) AWACS would be able to detect stealthy aircraft at a useful range; using the 'shadow' or some similar method.

Where would that leave Dave 'B' in the Eagle, Typhoon, Rafael type ranking? Are we throwing all our eggs in one basket?

KB

Whathaveyou
14th Apr 2009, 21:11
Possibly a stupid idea, but; Would it be feasible/sensible/possible to fit catapults on the carriers but without the corresponding traps? You could heave a bit (lots?) more payload/fuel into the air, but still plan and train for the good old vertical landings, or if you must RVLs.

Of course, this all assumes the majority of the hazards present in Cat'n'trap operations occur at the recovery end of flight and that Vertical/RVL is a safer way to do that. Not too mention less onerous on deck and flightcrew training & currency reqs. Crazy or what?

SSSETOWTF
14th Apr 2009, 22:48
It never ceases to amaze me how negative some people seem to be about the F-35B.

The debate over whether or not the -B should be scrapped 'to save money' is over. The money's been spent, the aircraft has been designed and built, thousands of hours have been spent in simulators getting the control laws sorted. The amount of money you'd save now by deciding not to flight test it is piddling compared to what's gone before. If you wanted to stop it you should have been jumping up and down 5 years ago. Now it's going to do huge amounts of risk reduction for the other 2 variants so if you scrap it you'll introduce delays to their test programmes of the order of several years - you'll be almost halving the number of instrumented test airplanes for pity's sake.

The variant debate for the UK is over too. I can't profess the ability or the inclination to explain the intimate detail of why the choice came out at the -B, but this wasn't the work of a lone barking mad loony. Lots of incredibly smart people will have done analysis of almost unimaginable depth into the UK's requirement. Dozens and dozens of Operational Analysts et al (boffins, geeks, historian-types, political whizz-kids, and aircrew) will have spent hours constructing worst case pictures of the possible threat scenarios that the UK could get involved in over the next 30 years. Even more procurement folks will have constructed huge databases of information about through-life costs etc. What I'm trying to say is that it's not a simple question of 'I like tail hooks, and if I'm playing Top Trumps variant x has a bigger range than variant y'.

As for LO and supersonic speed not being particularly important for CAS in a permissive environment - well I'd agree. But this airplane is to fulfill the UK's JCA requirement and there are a number of scenarios where stealth and speed can come in handy. When you don't need them, by all means bolt on the external pylons and twin-store racks and you have a very respectable loadout. If you need to go LO, then you can. And if someone comes up with an F-35 stealth countermeasure with a new system, that doesn't immediately render stealth obsolete. By that argument the fact that some IR missiles don't get decoyed by flares means there's no point having flares any more. An F-35 in the hands of smart operators gives far more options for developing counter-countermeasures than a 4th gen aircraft.

And finally - it's a whole lot more than just LO & a STOVL motor. The sensor suite alone is a reason to buy the airplane, as is the cockpit and the interoperability with um, just about all our major allies (can everybody be wrong - or is there a conspiracy theory to justify why it keeps getting selected?). And last but not least UK industry is doing very well out of the deal too.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Modern Elmo
14th Apr 2009, 23:15
Dave 'B' would appear to be a further compromised version of a Design which is already compromised (Weight, Frontal-Area & Aerodynamics) in the pursuit of 'stealth'.

In what way is this aircraft's design compromised? Please explain the lift fan F-35's flaws to us.

Don't afraid to go into detail regarding frontal area and aerodynamics. Describe your preferred alternative fighter aircraft design.

BEagle
15th Apr 2009, 07:17
So, if the F-22 stops being produced in favour of Lockheed's F-35, will various senators now start squealing that Boeing must be given priority in the KC-X competition, due to the impact on Boeing jobs?

Another politically compromised competition in the offing? Their inferior KC-767 failed to win the first KC-X competition, they moaned and whined for a second. The timing of the F-22 / F-35 decision smells a bit.....:hmm:

Modern Elmo
17th Apr 2009, 03:06
BEagie,

Several other ways to give Boeing more work: more C-17's, more F-18's, more P-8's and EP-8 or whatever they call it development, other component systems, more for black projects you and I haven't heard about, or give Boeing some pieces of the F-35 to manufacture, similar to Boeing's share of the F-22:

F-22 Raptor

In The News:

Boeing F-22 Maintenance 'Schoolhouse' Opens at U.S. Air Force Base

Boeing Awarded Contract to Integrate F-22 into U.S. Air Force Distributed Mission Operations Training Network

Boeing Delivers Wing Set for 100th F-22 Raptor Ahead of Schedule

Boeing Starts Production of Wing Set for 100th F-22 Raptor

All News Releases >>Overview

Boeing is teamed with Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney and the U.S. Air Force to produce the F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter. The Raptor's unique combination of stealth, speed, agility, precision and situational awareness make it overwhelmingly effective in its combined air-to-air and air-to-ground mission capability. In its expanding role as an ISR asset, the F-22 is making the entire joint force more effective by collecting timely information about the forward reaches of the battlespace and relaying it to other aircraft and command/control nodes. Ongoing modernization efforts -- including integration of the Small Diameter Bomb, electronic attack capability, synthetic aperture radar and the Coordinate Seeking Weapon -- will ensure the Raptor's relevance throughout its 40-year service life.

Recent Achievements ...

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/index.html)

Double Zero
17th Apr 2009, 06:19
Spiffing.

Now how does it land on a carrier, a ' Tractor beam ' ?

' Gator ' type ships, rather than the Royal Navy's idea of as far as I can see small CV's must make sense.

If the F-35B is as versatile as the Harrier, it would be a good combination.

Personally, as a Harrier person, can't help thinking that with all the money spent, the F-35 doesn't bring anything new & useful to CAS ?

Occasional Aviator
17th Apr 2009, 07:28
If the F-35B is as versatile as the Harrier,

followed by:

the F-35 doesn't bring anything new & useful to CAS ?

F-35B will be way more versatile than Harrier - and why just look at CAS? It will be a better air-to-air fighter than the SHAR could ever have hoped to be, and it brings many more capabilities to the party in terms of AI, ISTAR etc.

SSSETOWTF
17th Apr 2009, 12:03
Double Zero,

As OA points out, the JSF Operational Requirements Document lays out a dozen mission types that the aircraft is to be able to perform from SEAD/DEAD and OCA/DCA to CAS.

In the CAS role it brings :

11 pylons compared to the Harrier's 9 (one of which is for the gun of course),
you could just stay with 8 Small Diameter Bombs in the bays and retain supersonic dash capability for TST,
you have a mind-numbingly good ground-mapping radar that gives you a true all-weather capability,
optics at least as good as the old Sniper pod,
a fully integrated helmet mounted sight,
full Link 16 integration for TST tasking and global SA around you,
intra-flight datalinks with your buddies,
ROVER-like capability,
more bring-back to the ship,
a lot more than 2 MPCDs so you can actually look at more than just the map and the Sniper at the same time,
access to the full range of US weapons - without the UOR, SD or OEC faff,
FLIR-like images all around the airplane projected into the helmet at the touch of a button,
Direct Voice Input and a lot more HOTAS than a Harrier ever had - without all the mode changes (if I have a Mav then then this button does this, unless I have a Mav and a TIALD when it does this, unless the TIALD is uncaged when it does this etc)

and many more...

Oh and you're LO so if the next war is somewhere a bit nastier than Afghanistan and there are mobile double digit SAMs everywhere you don't have to immediately call in sick.

But I don't recall seeing a plan to integrate CRV-7 onto F-35 - if that's what you're driving at?

Totally with you on the LHD/LHX vs CV point though. I'm curious to know why the RN want an enormous boat that does nothing but aircraft, instead of an enormous amphibious assault ship with troops etc. I assume there were good reasons. Anyone?

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

Double Zero
17th Apr 2009, 13:55
SSSTETOWTF,

Many thanks for your reply, it explains a lot to a plank like me who simply doesn't get that info'...I have a feeling, if you are who I think, that we have worked together in the past !

I agree the F-35 has a lot more future if things go really pear-shaped, but in the meantime ( everyone plans for the last war, not any potential, especially accountants ) couldn't we do with something like a STOVL A-10 ?!

As you say, it's a mystery why the proposed CVF's don't carry Marines & landing craft etc; I sadly surmise, living next door to a retired Admiral ( of course he only got there by binning his flying career in Sea Vixens ) that there's still a lot of " in the good old days we had the big Ark Royal & Phantoms " etc, just as RAF people still wax lyrical about the Lightning, which is probably the crappest weapon system ever fielded, ranging alongside that rocket propelled cartwheel job which was supposed to clear mines on D-Day !...

Regards,

DZ

engineer(retard)
17th Apr 2009, 16:15
SSSTETOWTF

"access to the full range of US weapons - without the UOR, SD or OEC faff"

Do you know if they are getting cleared to UK standards under the current contract? My recollection is that UK and US SD criteria are different and that MAR clearance will require a host of additional safety case paperwork.

regards

retard

Not_a_boffin
17th Apr 2009, 17:16
Single seat / 00

The reason the CVF is a monster is primarily the deck area required to park sufficient aircraft to generate the required sortie numbers / rates, combined with some assumptions as to the max size package you might want to run off that deck. The realisation of this (circa 1999/2000) when actual flypros were put together rather than just shoving 26 a/c in the hangar and 14 on deck was the point at which the design suddenly went from 40000te (the original concept design) to 60000te or so.

Fitting landing craft, vehicle decks, troop spaces and docks (plus 20000 tonnes or so of ballast tankage) to a ship with a sizeable hangar is very definitely non-trivial - particularly if you compare US accommodation stds and manning practices to ours. Then you get to deconfliction issues - r/w slicks and snakes vs f/w CAS and AD. Bear in mind that US LHD never operate without a CVBG when there is any sort of air threat. A UK LHD would have to be all AD or rotary plus CAS, with no in-between.

Shrink the ship and you actually save very little in cost. Try to include the amphib requirements (particularly vehicle decks and surface lift) and for the same size you lose shedloads of fuel, AVCAT and stores. To include it all you get a LOT bigger and we're at the limit of what UK infrastructure will support now.

Double Zero
17th Apr 2009, 18:10
Point taken, Not A Boffin,

Though I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing the design had gone down the ' Gator ' route from the start.

One thing I've not seen mentioned is, will the CVF's have a ski ramp ?

To pretend the Harrier will be gone, and JSF in place, is optimistic if not downright foolish...

hulahoop7
17th Apr 2009, 18:15
NaB - cleared that one up then.

Add to that:

1. We've already got Ocean.. (and we'd be fools not to keep Ark in reserve)

2. Do you want to risk a 65-100kt monster inshore?

3. The UK will be able to have a LPH, LPD, LSD and CV all on the same operation, and all not necessarily being in the same place or hitting the same objective.

Compare that to:
1. One big fat target, with all your air force, all your assault troops, and your first wave logistics coming inshore.

Not_a_boffin
17th Apr 2009, 19:07
00

If we buy Dave B, CVF will have a ramp. If its Dave C, then cat n' trap.

Hulahoop has also hit the nail squarely on the head on the military logic of separate carriers & amphibs. I do think we're headed off down the "fools" route re Ark though. Buzz is that she's not in the best material condition, but having one CVS hull parked in 3 basin (beasties in the water permitting) out to the mid-twenties would make a lot of sense.......

Navaleye
17th Apr 2009, 19:13
The Americans seem to be getting their act together...

19:07 17Apr09 RTRS-PENTAGON-DISCUSSIONS UNDERWAY ON POSSIBLE MULTIYEAR PURCHASE OF LOCKHEED F-35 FIGHTERS FROM 2015 ON
19:37 17Apr09 RTRS-Pentagon eyes multiyear buys of F-35s from 2015
WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The Pentagon hopes to pursue multiyear purchase agreements with Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> for its new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters around 2015, chief arms buyer John Young said on Friday.
Young said the department was keen to sign such agreements once production of a new weapon had stabilized and any production issues had been worked out.
He said no "urgent, compelling" multiyear agreements for other weapons systems presented themselves during the fiscal 2010 budget process, but the Pentagon would revisit the issue again when preparing the fiscal 2011 budget.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa) (([email protected]; + 1 202 354 5807; Reuters Messaging: [email protected]))

Easy Street
17th Apr 2009, 20:14
One of the reasons I have heard mooted for choosing F35B over F35C is the potential for "rough-strip" ops... please tell me they actually mean "short-field" ops? I can't think of anything more likely to completely destroy the LO characteristics of a spangly new 5th-gen fighter than landing it on a dirt-covered PSP strip! Or have I missed something?

FOG
17th Apr 2009, 20:44
KB,

I'll caveat this with not knowing anyone who has direct knowledge of the Rafael, and only limited direct knowledge of Typhoon.

Short version is that most would take a F-35B into combat over any on your list even with adding in all version of the Hornet. Everyone would prefer the F-22 for A-A of course but…

S/F, FOG

FOG
17th Apr 2009, 21:00
00,

I'm not a Harrier bubba but the F-35B brings far better avionics/sensor suite/situational awareness to the CAS arena.

I don't know if the engine change interval on your side of the pond is much different than ours but is they are similar than the F-35B "SHOULD" require far less maint. Thus allowing more station time for logistical chain support required; i.e. fewer wrench turners, fewer flights to get new engines in theater, etc.

The supersonic sprint can help. Over Anbar starting in 04 the USAF was supposed to provide all FW tanking; only problem was they wanted larger single gives further away from where the TacAir was needed in order to minimize their support required. The time off station was unacceptable so we had to generate extra sorties to cover the gaps and use our KC-130s for standby tanking in addition to other duties. A higher transit speed should increase the radii of acceptable coverage.

S/F, FOG