F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
If their fusion reactor works as well as the F135, it's probably a good time to dump any property you might own in Palmdale, 20 miles around it and 1000 miles downwind.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was looking at protective cases for the iPhone 6, earlier.
One case had a sticker saying "made to military spec" or "military stds".
That isn't a good thing.
Will the case be trillions over my budget, 7 years late and arrive with flaws?
One case had a sticker saying "made to military spec" or "military stds".
That isn't a good thing.
Will the case be trillions over my budget, 7 years late and arrive with flaws?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question if i may.
Please excuse my simplistic view.
Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it's own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.
If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?
If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelyhood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?
If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.
QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.
Am i over simplfying this and if so would it be too much to ask for a reasoned explanation?
Please excuse my simplistic view.
Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it's own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.
If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?
If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelyhood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?
If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.
QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.
Am i over simplfying this and if so would it be too much to ask for a reasoned explanation?
A question if i may.
Please excuse my simplistic view.
Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it's own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.
If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?
If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelyhood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?
If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.
QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.
Am i over simplfying this and if so would it be too much to ask for a reasoned explanation?
Please excuse my simplistic view.
Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it's own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.
If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?
If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelyhood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?
If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.
QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.
Am i over simplfying this and if so would it be too much to ask for a reasoned explanation?
The USMC wanted to be relevant in all aspects of a peer or near-peer conflict, and eventually replace the F-18 and AV-8B.
To be accurate, what the Marines originally wanted was a Harrier replacement that could take care of itself against a low-grade air threat, with teen-series-like agility and acceleration and the Mach that fell out of that performance. That was basically the RN requirement as well.
However, the Marines were then told that they could have all that and stealth and that it would cost them less, because the same airplane would be adapted as an F-16 replacement for the Air Force, which would pay for the development and provide the bulk of production orders.
Then big Navy was roped in, because funding this project meant that big Navy's own stealth project had to be cancelled.
But it was still going to be cheap because "salagadoola mechika boola bibbedy bobbedy ing boo", aka "cost as an independent variable".
However, the Marines were then told that they could have all that and stealth and that it would cost them less, because the same airplane would be adapted as an F-16 replacement for the Air Force, which would pay for the development and provide the bulk of production orders.
Then big Navy was roped in, because funding this project meant that big Navy's own stealth project had to be cancelled.
But it was still going to be cheap because "salagadoola mechika boola bibbedy bobbedy ing boo", aka "cost as an independent variable".
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desiring one airframe to do it all doesn't sound like a particularly rigourous or assessment based approach to defining requirements.
Neither does it expalin why the Marines needed or need to be relevant in all aspects of a peer to peer conflict.
Using that logic ultimately arrives at there being no need for an army or air force as the Marines can fulfil those roles.
Neither does it expalin why the Marines needed or need to be relevant in all aspects of a peer to peer conflict.
Using that logic ultimately arrives at there being no need for an army or air force as the Marines can fulfil those roles.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that IS the marines view..........
TBH they have to try and keep up with the others - if they don't their relevance lapses and they will gradually wither away (not before time from a lot of people's view)
TBH they have to try and keep up with the others - if they don't their relevance lapses and they will gradually wither away (not before time from a lot of people's view)
And when that original requirement was written, the Marines expected to be pinning down a few Soviet units in Norway, on the grounds that the aforementioned Commies would then be absent from the Fulda Gap. ASTOVL was, in that scenario, the follow-on to AV-8B Plus/AIM-120 combo.
SNAFU, the Goldwater Nichols Act, and a lot of other "Joint/Purple" rules written into law by Congress defy the kind of clear analytical requirements crafting that can be done under the assumptions embedded in your questions.
Welcom to the actual world, where all is not rational.
The aforementioned rules were written with an eye toward:
Interoperability
Cost saving
and
"make sure enough districts get a contract so that we all get re-elected."
The cost saving goal, as you can see, has been a myth since about 1984 (86?) when Goldwater Nichols was written, and not just on this program.
Yet the rules remain.
Before I get all wound up, I'll stop.
Welcom to the actual world, where all is not rational.
The aforementioned rules were written with an eye toward:
Interoperability
Cost saving
and
"make sure enough districts get a contract so that we all get re-elected."
The cost saving goal, as you can see, has been a myth since about 1984 (86?) when Goldwater Nichols was written, and not just on this program.
Yet the rules remain.
Before I get all wound up, I'll stop.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AW&ST: Australia Mulls F-35Bs For Its New Assault Ships
BAE Systems has handed over the first of Australia’s two new assault ships as the government considers whether to equip the vessels with a squadron of Lockheed Martin F‑35B Lightnings.
The move would reintroduce fixed-wing combat aircraft to Australian naval service after a gap of more than 30 years. However, it lacks backing from the three armed services and looks difficult to justify, even as the government shows a willingness to boost the defense forces with more Boeing C-17 airlifters and Airbus KC-30 tankers.
The first of the new flat-topped assault ships will be commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) this year as HMAS Canberra. The second ship, the future HMAS Adelaide, is due to run contractor sea trials in the second quarter of next year ahead of delivery in the third quarter, says prime contractor BAE Systems........
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told the defense department to consider F-35Bs, says an adviser to the government on defense policy. Indeed, Abbott appears to have personally proposed the idea ahead of the publication of a defense white paper next year. Japan is facing a similar decision as it proceeds with plans for at least one air-capable assault ship (AW&ST Aug. 19, p. 32).
“Matters of this kind will be considered in the context of the 2015 Defense White Paper,” says the defense department, declining to elaborate on its considerations. Defense Minister David Johnston said in May that the order was a possibility. Australia is considering establishing two F-35B squadrons, says analyst Ben Schreer of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, adding that probably 18-24 aircraft would be needed. Including modifications to the ships, the cost would exceed AUS$5 billion ($4.4 billion).
Neither the RAN, Australian Army nor, least of all, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is publicly supporting the idea. For the RAAF, the purchase could put an end to its long-term hopes of acquiring 28 F-35As to add to 72 already approved..........
BAE Systems has handed over the first of Australia’s two new assault ships as the government considers whether to equip the vessels with a squadron of Lockheed Martin F‑35B Lightnings.
The move would reintroduce fixed-wing combat aircraft to Australian naval service after a gap of more than 30 years. However, it lacks backing from the three armed services and looks difficult to justify, even as the government shows a willingness to boost the defense forces with more Boeing C-17 airlifters and Airbus KC-30 tankers.
The first of the new flat-topped assault ships will be commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) this year as HMAS Canberra. The second ship, the future HMAS Adelaide, is due to run contractor sea trials in the second quarter of next year ahead of delivery in the third quarter, says prime contractor BAE Systems........
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told the defense department to consider F-35Bs, says an adviser to the government on defense policy. Indeed, Abbott appears to have personally proposed the idea ahead of the publication of a defense white paper next year. Japan is facing a similar decision as it proceeds with plans for at least one air-capable assault ship (AW&ST Aug. 19, p. 32).
“Matters of this kind will be considered in the context of the 2015 Defense White Paper,” says the defense department, declining to elaborate on its considerations. Defense Minister David Johnston said in May that the order was a possibility. Australia is considering establishing two F-35B squadrons, says analyst Ben Schreer of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, adding that probably 18-24 aircraft would be needed. Including modifications to the ships, the cost would exceed AUS$5 billion ($4.4 billion).
Neither the RAN, Australian Army nor, least of all, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is publicly supporting the idea. For the RAAF, the purchase could put an end to its long-term hopes of acquiring 28 F-35As to add to 72 already approved..........
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting opinion on the matter in the Times, this morning.
Anyone else question the IOC by 2018 actually being reality?
Joint Stuck Fighter | The Times
Anyone else question the IOC by 2018 actually being reality?
Joint Stuck Fighter | The Times
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you can't convince the Murdoch Press..................... (mind they didn't mention that the B version was needed for the UK Carriers)
I see the F-35 as the easiest target for cost cutting in summer 2015 whoever is in power
I see the F-35 as the easiest target for cost cutting in summer 2015 whoever is in power
Harry:
This thread on "F-35 Cancelled, then what?" started about four and a half years ago. `
It still isn't cancelled.
Perspective:
in about the same amount of time, the UK went from outrage that Poland had been invaded, through the Blitz, Victory at El Alemain, and were working their up the boot of Italy (and on the other side of the world, back on the offensive against the Japanese in the CBI theatre) .
Numerous versions of Spits, Hurricaines, and other aircraft had been produced since then. P-51 was becoming the better version of itself as well.
Aircraft acquisition and certification, as well as IOC, has sure come a cropper in the modern age.
This thread on "F-35 Cancelled, then what?" started about four and a half years ago. `
It still isn't cancelled.
Perspective:
in about the same amount of time, the UK went from outrage that Poland had been invaded, through the Blitz, Victory at El Alemain, and were working their up the boot of Italy (and on the other side of the world, back on the offensive against the Japanese in the CBI theatre) .
Numerous versions of Spits, Hurricaines, and other aircraft had been produced since then. P-51 was becoming the better version of itself as well.
Aircraft acquisition and certification, as well as IOC, has sure come a cropper in the modern age.
A2QFI,
The F-35B has been in service with USMC VMFA-121 at MCAS Yuma for almost 2 years !
https://www.f35.com/media/videos-det...y-to-mcas-yuma
VMFA-121 expects to declare IOC in July 2015.
https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...ke-fighter-jsf
The F-35B has been in service with USMC VMFA-121 at MCAS Yuma for almost 2 years !
https://www.f35.com/media/videos-det...y-to-mcas-yuma
VMFA-121 expects to declare IOC in July 2015.
https://marinecorpsconceptsandprogra...ke-fighter-jsf