Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
"...The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air." Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, formerly the Air Force intelligence chief and a veteran F-15 pilot, said having that kind of capability is a huge advantage. "I'm real happy to hear that in fact is the case, because speed gives you a variety of advantages," he said. "It allows you to employ your air-to-air missiles from a range much greater than otherwise would be the case."
Though the F-35's maximum speed is Mach 1.6, the F-35 test program will eventually push the jet a little beyond that limit to make sure operational pilots have a margin of safety, Griffiths said...."
that's a funny definition...seeing that I made no claim and said the source was a forum poster, preempted by 'for what it's worth'
Its worth nothing. The is Professional Pilots forum, many of the posters here are/were involved in the real world. You should respect that.
Linking to another forum as a reference is not acceptable on Wikipedia and its isn't on this forum or any other for that matter unless the source is verify-ably credible.
now that is an interesting link............... he didn't mention the B-52 - surely the greatest of all sequential upgrades to old airframes
two gems:- Unlike the US Air Force, many value minded F-35 buyers find other aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafael, used F-16s, Su-30, or the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, just to name a few, quite competitive alternatives. Early defectors would beat the crowd to get these alternatives early, while laggards either get stuck footing the bill, or get put on the waiting list.
But if the US Marine Corps gives up on the F-35B, the Royal Navy is royally screwed. If design changes in the Queen Elizabeth II carrier class have been finalized, closing the door on CATOBAR and committing them to STOVL, they have even fewer viable alternatives than the US Marine Corps. The Royal Navy has no other high performance, multirole or support aircraft to fall back upon and don’t have the luxury of a sister service providing deck space for CATOBAR aircraft to make up for lost high end capabilities on their ships. Either the Royal Navy would be forced to undergo an outrageously expensive development program of a new aircraft by itself, or go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft and chose from the small palette of options in this class.
The key of course being that the RN per se is not to receive a single F-35 and never has been. The aircraft will belong to AOC 1 Gp whose parent service, I suspect, wouldn't shed a single tear for the demise of the carrier strike capability.
Of course, there is no reason why anyone not versed in the UK's FW C2 would understand that jets procured against a maritime strike requirement would be Joint crewed but owned, commanded and controlled by an Air Force.
At this point, who owns the 48 Dave-Bs is the least of our concerns. Indeed, if there are to be only 48 Dave-Bs (B for Boat?) and c. 100 Dave-A (A for Air Force?) then you could even paint ROYAL NAVY on the side of each one and operate them from Yeovs.
The bigger point now is that there is clearly a debate in the US about whether the USMC actually needs the STOVL capabilities of Dave-B, and if so, at what price? It is interesting to me that the USMC is going to have at least 80 Dave-C http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/na...plan-revealed/, opening to door to an all Dave-C buy in the mid-2020s.
And as was pointed out earlier by HH's quote:
Quote:
But if the US Marine Corps gives up on the F-35B, the Royal Navy is royally screwed. If design changes in the Queen Elizabeth II carrier class have been finalized, closing the door on CATOBAR and committing them to STOVL, they have even fewer viable alternatives than the US Marine Corps. The Royal Navy has no other high performance, multirole or support aircraft to fall back upon and don’t have the luxury of a sister service providing deck space for CATOBAR aircraft to make up for lost high end capabilities on their ships. Either the Royal Navy would be forced to undergo an outrageously expensive development program of a new aircraft by itself, or go back and convert the QE IIs back to handle CATOBAR aircraft and chose from the small palette of options in this class.
Um, yep. And the odds on this happening are shortening.
You miss my point. I was merely pointing out that there is a significant amount of ignorance surrounding the UK buy. 'The Royal Navy' left the jet game upon the 'cross decking' of the SHAR to 3 Gp if you ask me. But no-one did..
I have never hid my own opinion and it is very simple. We had an opportunity to buy the right aircraft with F-18E as a back up if it failed. We (IMHO) are now buying not only the wrong aircraft but there is no back up.
As to who owns it? Well, if it's cats and traps with all that entails I really can't see why anyone other than a navy would have anything to do with it. If it's the easy one then there's a strong argument for an air force owning the lot.
Not a debate, that link is from March 2011. There hasn't been much discussion of it since. Its does emphasis how the F-35C is the lowest volume buy, however.
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 42
Posts: 326
No ASRAAM carried internally on F35?
According to this well known , but surprisingly well informed ,F35 critic, the F35 won't carry any ASRAAM (and it looks like no other rail launched missiles either) in its internal bay.
That'll put a serious dent in the plans of anyone (eg,UK)using the stealth advantages optimally
Since the start of the UK signing on to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program years ago, it was briefed that one of the weapons to be cleared for internal carry by the end of systems development and demonstration (SDD) phase with UK jets was the ASRAAM AIM-132 air-to-air missile.
Now, according to a briefing by program officials earlier this year, it seems that the AIM-132 will only be cleared for outside carry--the non-stealth mode--by the end of SDD.
There have been other degraded affects with the AIM-132 and UK F-35. Back in 2008, program officials announced that it was just too much work to clear the AIM-132 for carry on internal air-to-ground hard-points. In each of the F-35's two internal weapon's bays you have one hard-point which can hold either an air-to-ground weapon or an air-to-air weapon. One door from each of the two bays can also hold an air-to-air missile. This gives the potential for the F-35 to carry 4 air-to-air missiles internally.
Originally the UK expected to have the ability to carry 4 AIM-132s internally; 2 for each weapons bay. With the 2008 announcement, that left the UK with 2 internal carry AIM-132s (hung on the internal part of one of the weapons bay doors) and the other two would be carried externally. In 2008 it was passed off that the external carry would be with low-observable hard-points to carry the missile but program officials have already stated that if you carry weapons externally, you are not stealthy.
So from originally 4 internally carried ASRAAM's to 2 in 2008 and now down to 0.
Given that the UK armed forces are seemingly pared to the bone the argument that the UK can have what they pay for is a great one for ditching the F35 and obtaining other kit that will allow GB to operate as a sovereign nation at a level appropriate to our real size, importance and relevance. Any purchase of F35's is going to be too small to have any real use unless it is alongside the Yanks, even then it is simply a political cloak for US foreign policy!
As for a certain "contributors" comments re those thoughts of a serving military officer i'm just in awe at the superb rebuttal and coherently argued counter points put forward...
There is a certain merit to what you say, although there is also a compelling argument that when F-35 hits the streets the nations of the free world will simply fall into two categories. Those that have it and those that don't.
From my limited participation in the project I think it is a capability step change that we have never seen and few appreciate. Nothing, including so called Gen 4.5, comes close.
As for the size and status of our country and an armed forces that seemed appropriate I couldn't agree more. That's why the fact that a small wind swept rock in the north atlantic got rid of its MPA, CVS and VSTOL aircraft still confuses me!
Couple of thoughts if i may; accepting that the F35 will bring a level of capability previously unseen does the long gestation have any bearing on it's effectiveness once it does eventually reach front line service, given the likelihood that the "opposition" will also not have stood still? Secondly what does it actually mean if you are not a member of the F35 club? Focusing on GB and being in complete agreement on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the reductions in capability you mention how does being a member of the "F35 club" yet possessing a militarily ineffective "force" of front line jets and no other capabilities that a small maritime nation might deem useful, actually benefit GB?
.
