F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a nation ,outside of the u.s. that could conceivably invade the u.k. Without a years notice?...No
Are there nations that may fk around with our assets abroad.. Possibly.
That's where our current defence budget should be spent. So it's carriers, marines , rapid deployment, paras , etc.
So we need carrier defence aircraft and ground attack carrier based aircraft.
Fleet air arm.. Two specific aircraft.
Are there nations that may fk around with our assets abroad.. Possibly.
That's where our current defence budget should be spent. So it's carriers, marines , rapid deployment, paras , etc.
So we need carrier defence aircraft and ground attack carrier based aircraft.
Fleet air arm.. Two specific aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what's hidden away in 2015???
Honest question: are there any airborne offensive operations of the past couple of decades that couldn't have been done with mildly updated B52s, A10s and Canberras?
The fact is, we think things should be getting easier, in fact they will be getting harder. Whilst there are potential major adversaries, we have to hold the deterrent line against them, as well have the ability to take on the mozzie bites like ISIS.
The problem with the major adversaries is they require multiple deacadel thinking, something that has the potential to go very wrong.
Its becoming apparent with the combination of the idiot in the whitehouse, psychopath in the Kremlin and China starting to position itself, some major defence rethinking is going to be required.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a nation ,outside of the u.s. that could conceivably invade the u.k. Without a years notice?...No
Are there nations that may fk around with our assets abroad.. Possibly.
Are there nations that may fk around with our assets abroad.. Possibly.
What is needed is a serious assessment of the THREATS, which includes far far more than an "invasion." And for an island nation like the UK, that includes strangulation by blocking the sea lanes.
Malcrf, it could be brought back to life as an excellent platform. Sadly, I suspect the F-35 sales pitch exceeds what Buccaneer did. Now, I write this very carefully.
Bucc did great low level attack - possible the best ever without TFR (your upgrade would probably sort that - I know I'm ignoring previous work here).
Bucc did great anti-shipping. Bananas. Very brave stuff. And the guys were outstanding there.
Recce. Clearly possible.
AAR. Sure, if the Navy can support its shrinking relevance. Not a difficult role for an aircraft such as the Bucc, but maybe we shouldn't need it as much as we did because the alternative today is a Gen5 airframe that, surely, should get airborne with a full fuel load.
Nuclear strike. Well a mute point because the UK is not France and the role has been passed along to the RN. Let's hope they fight their corner hard enough to protect it.
EW. That's classified, right?
What does that leave? AD, Interdiction (as it used to be called), CAS, etc.
What is the alternative? Well, there is no alternative. This thing is coming.
BUT, Malcrf, you make a really good point (in my opinion). A great aircraft can do important roles really well. For a long time we all tried to build aircraft that could do them all. And we succeeded to an extent - F-15e as an example.
But then we try to design an aircraft where stealth is supposed to make it undetectable and indestructible. We all know where the stealth argument ends and the compromises it imposes on performance. And that will be the big tester when it goes up against a Century 21 adversary built for a specific role, like the Bucc.
So, maybe there is an argument for aircraft designed for a role. The Bucc certainly was. The re-engineered Bucc can't do all the F-35 roles. But then we don't know that F-35 can yet either.
Personally, I'd love to see the Bucc in the air. And a major upgrade could probobly make it a potent aircraft. But...
Bucc did great low level attack - possible the best ever without TFR (your upgrade would probably sort that - I know I'm ignoring previous work here).
Bucc did great anti-shipping. Bananas. Very brave stuff. And the guys were outstanding there.
Recce. Clearly possible.
AAR. Sure, if the Navy can support its shrinking relevance. Not a difficult role for an aircraft such as the Bucc, but maybe we shouldn't need it as much as we did because the alternative today is a Gen5 airframe that, surely, should get airborne with a full fuel load.
Nuclear strike. Well a mute point because the UK is not France and the role has been passed along to the RN. Let's hope they fight their corner hard enough to protect it.
EW. That's classified, right?
What does that leave? AD, Interdiction (as it used to be called), CAS, etc.
What is the alternative? Well, there is no alternative. This thing is coming.
BUT, Malcrf, you make a really good point (in my opinion). A great aircraft can do important roles really well. For a long time we all tried to build aircraft that could do them all. And we succeeded to an extent - F-15e as an example.
But then we try to design an aircraft where stealth is supposed to make it undetectable and indestructible. We all know where the stealth argument ends and the compromises it imposes on performance. And that will be the big tester when it goes up against a Century 21 adversary built for a specific role, like the Bucc.
So, maybe there is an argument for aircraft designed for a role. The Bucc certainly was. The re-engineered Bucc can't do all the F-35 roles. But then we don't know that F-35 can yet either.
Personally, I'd love to see the Bucc in the air. And a major upgrade could probobly make it a potent aircraft. But...
Join Date: May 2015
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the considered and comprehensive reply, appreciated.
Personally, I'd rather have 2/3 types that are designed for purpose, rather than 1 Jack of All Trades. Typhoon for Air Superiority and Super Bucc for offensive work would suit me just fine (and would probably be both better and cheaper), and we'd have common power units.
Personally, I'd rather have 2/3 types that are designed for purpose, rather than 1 Jack of All Trades. Typhoon for Air Superiority and Super Bucc for offensive work would suit me just fine (and would probably be both better and cheaper), and we'd have common power units.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
?Lockheed not ditching agile fighter designs - 5/13/2015 - Flight Global
There appears to be some uncertainty over what course future fighter design(s) will follow. According to the linked Flightglobal piece above, LM may produce a fast, agile fighter. Yet the same article links to another report that puts much more emphasis on weapons and sensor capability before the more traditional fighter attributes. I also recall that USN Adml Greenert at one time advocated less sophisticated 'bomb-trucks' more heavily loaded with smart, long range weaponry. You pays your money (lots of it) and you takes your choice - perhaps. Maybe in future B52 type weapons platforms will be intercepted at very long range by similar sized 'fighters' loaded with long range missiles? Or maybe not.
I guess it will probably depend who your enemy is and what their capabilities are, which probably comes back to having an appropriate system for the threat presented, which in turn probably means several different role-optimised platforms. It seems to me that 'one size fits all' procurement is an economic solution before a military one. The irony is that multi-role seems to come at huge expense, maybe even greater than having multiple platform tails? If the cost is similar or near similar, surely an optimised platform is preferable as it will handle the presented threat more capably?
My overloaded brain can't see a clear way through this maze; hopefully there are smarter folk who can. Or perhaps, in F35, LM have already accurately predicted the future requirement of a smart fighter that's maybe a bit behind the speed and agility curve?
Rambling over, to the relief of all no doubt.
LF
There appears to be some uncertainty over what course future fighter design(s) will follow. According to the linked Flightglobal piece above, LM may produce a fast, agile fighter. Yet the same article links to another report that puts much more emphasis on weapons and sensor capability before the more traditional fighter attributes. I also recall that USN Adml Greenert at one time advocated less sophisticated 'bomb-trucks' more heavily loaded with smart, long range weaponry. You pays your money (lots of it) and you takes your choice - perhaps. Maybe in future B52 type weapons platforms will be intercepted at very long range by similar sized 'fighters' loaded with long range missiles? Or maybe not.
I guess it will probably depend who your enemy is and what their capabilities are, which probably comes back to having an appropriate system for the threat presented, which in turn probably means several different role-optimised platforms. It seems to me that 'one size fits all' procurement is an economic solution before a military one. The irony is that multi-role seems to come at huge expense, maybe even greater than having multiple platform tails? If the cost is similar or near similar, surely an optimised platform is preferable as it will handle the presented threat more capably?
My overloaded brain can't see a clear way through this maze; hopefully there are smarter folk who can. Or perhaps, in F35, LM have already accurately predicted the future requirement of a smart fighter that's maybe a bit behind the speed and agility curve?
Rambling over, to the relief of all no doubt.
LF
LockMart's strategy for next-generation fighters is to issue pronouncements that confuse the 
out of everybody. It would be dumb for them to do anything else, because they never forget who they're working for, and fiduciary law makes it extremely clear who that "who" is.
out of everybody. It would be dumb for them to do anything else, because they never forget who they're working for, and fiduciary law makes it extremely clear who that "who" is.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have it from the horse's mouth that most of the Canadian political parties agree with me, and for those reasons. At the moment, we have the other lot in power, but there's an election soon.
A bit different when you have to make those decisions and weigh up all the compromise that politically go with it. knowing the yanks as they are, there would't be any of consequence, so feel free.
Lets face it the main use of fast jet forces are to be against an another with fast jets. (in practice they are being used against savages).
In the case of a serious adversery, we aren't going to be involved in much without the yanks. As such, one wonders how much decision making relies on total foreseen force make up and interoperability.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RH200,
I think we agree.
I'm sure that Air Power proponents have been saying we'll be fighting Air Forces for decades but it's never happened. I personally doubt we'll see high end air-to-air combat in our life times. We use fixed wing day in and out for strike and ISR, but we throw millions of pounds of fuel and millions of hours training for air-to-air which doesn't seem to have happened or be likely to happen.
That being said, I do think, as the most stressing case we need an insurance policy against it. I'm just personally convinced the likelihood is tiny.
I think we agree.
I'm sure that Air Power proponents have been saying we'll be fighting Air Forces for decades but it's never happened. I personally doubt we'll see high end air-to-air combat in our life times. We use fixed wing day in and out for strike and ISR, but we throw millions of pounds of fuel and millions of hours training for air-to-air which doesn't seem to have happened or be likely to happen.
That being said, I do think, as the most stressing case we need an insurance policy against it. I'm just personally convinced the likelihood is tiny.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Defence' forces are insurance policies (well, cavorting around the Missle East aside...). How many trillions were spent on ICBMs? How many times did they get used?
Joe Public probably wouldn't react well if Boris Badenov and Chairman Jin were flaunting flash new stealth weapons that could not be countered, regardless of the platform. The 'arms race', whilst it may have slowed a bit, is still running.
So you get with the program or you get left behind. For the 'Leader of the Free World', and us lesser hangers-on, there's no option.
Joe Public probably wouldn't react well if Boris Badenov and Chairman Jin were flaunting flash new stealth weapons that could not be countered, regardless of the platform. The 'arms race', whilst it may have slowed a bit, is still running.
So you get with the program or you get left behind. For the 'Leader of the Free World', and us lesser hangers-on, there's no option.
F-35B at sea aboard USS Wasp
F-35B's coming and going on sea trials c/o Aviation Week videos. Apologies if this has already been "PPRuNed", here or elsewhere:-
Videos: F-35B Operational Test Trials | Ares
Videos: F-35B Operational Test Trials | Ares
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operational Test Trials. hmm...
... just a bunch of cabs landing and taking off.
If it is felt that this is cause for celebration go check out your local airport...
As for "watch the nozzle in the hover".....
...SpaceX have only been going for what, 12 [?] months of offshore landing trials and are almost there...
Then again they ARE a commercial organisation and have to pay their own bills...
... just a bunch of cabs landing and taking off.
If it is felt that this is cause for celebration go check out your local airport...
As for "watch the nozzle in the hover".....
...SpaceX have only been going for what, 12 [?] months of offshore landing trials and are almost there...
Then again they ARE a commercial organisation and have to pay their own bills...
glad rag...SpaceX have only been going for what, 12 [?] months of offshore landing trials and are almost there
In my book I would not call THREE recent "crashes" as "almost there". I do allow it is not an easy task.
I especially like this gem on the social media PR spin after that last failure: http://gizmodo.com/spacex-crashed-a-...ain-1697530848
"Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing". In the old days that would be a crash......
Last edited by sandiego89; 28th May 2015 at 13:00.
The STOVL flight control is impressive. And after a lot of time and money - STOVL has added double-digit gigabucks to R&D, starting with the two engines - the system has become reliable enough to perform repeated operations with journos watching. Also, congrats are due if they actually did practice an afloat engine and lift-fan change.
However...
+ $50 million per airplane
+ >4,000 lb deadweight
- 5,000 lb internal gas
Not to mention that the CTOL airplane has its wingspan dictated by parking on the Wasps, and its overall length constrained by the elevators on the Invincibles.
Now all we need from the Marines is a CONOPS that makes an iota of sense and we're off to the races.
PS - Note the bloke making a very careful walk-around visual check of the landing spot at 4:15-4:45.
However...
+ $50 million per airplane
+ >4,000 lb deadweight
- 5,000 lb internal gas
Not to mention that the CTOL airplane has its wingspan dictated by parking on the Wasps, and its overall length constrained by the elevators on the Invincibles.
Now all we need from the Marines is a CONOPS that makes an iota of sense and we're off to the races.
PS - Note the bloke making a very careful walk-around visual check of the landing spot at 4:15-4:45.
And this link says with a day or two to go on the trials, the 6 jets (maybe 7 as it looks like a spare went out) had logged 98 flights with 73 hours. First night landings at sea.
Lockheed's F-35B clears naval landing tests; 'right at home at sea': US Marine Corps - The Economic Times
Lockheed's F-35B clears naval landing tests; 'right at home at sea': US Marine Corps - The Economic Times
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhh rag, are you sure you want to cite space X landing trials on their barge a comparative success?
In my book I would not call THREE recent "crashes" as "almost there". I do allow it is not an easy task.
I especially like this gem on the social media PR spin after that last failure: SpaceX Crash-Landed a Rocket on a Drone Barge (Again)
"Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing". In the old days that would be a crash......
In my book I would not call THREE recent "crashes" as "almost there". I do allow it is not an easy task.
I especially like this gem on the social media PR spin after that last failure: SpaceX Crash-Landed a Rocket on a Drone Barge (Again)
"Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing". In the old days that would be a crash......
IIRC The last one fell over because it overstressed one leg [first] then over it went, the control system was operating correctly right up to the point the rocket motor ramped up for touchdown then the correction rate of the nozzle slowed right down and could not react in time...[perhaps the fuel is used to drive the nozzle, sudden demand from engine leads to drop in flow/pressure across other parts of the system?? Or loss of hyd pump pressure due to fuel being the hyd pump's prime driver??? pure speculation on my part btw]
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Much as I am reluctant to get into a 'figures slanging' match with you, I think i have to pick you up on a couple of points:
1. CTOL wingspan was not dictated by parking on the Wasp. Nor, for that matter, was the STOVL wingspan.
2. Invincible class lift (not elevator, LIFT) size had absolutely no effect on design of any of the F-35 variants. Certainly not overall length. There was never an endorsed requirement for the F-35B to go down the lift. It was considered, but never included as a formal requirement.
3. Yep, the landing spots are being carefully checked for any damage, as this set of trials allows much more demanding conditions to be applied to the 'Thermion' coating. It's precisely what I'd expect to happen. It's normal trials activity. Honest.
4. The F-35B isn't carrying 'deadweight'. It's carrying the kit required to conduct STOVL ops, which is kind of the point of the F-35B. For completeness, perhaps you need to look at the weight delta (or 'deadweight'?) required to get the F-35C to carry out CATOBAR ops.
5. I expect that Marine CONOPS make sense to them and also to the USN. And the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who will have signed off on them. I know you won't agree with them, but honestly, I'll go with their judgement for now.
So, in around 13 days, 98 flights and 73 flying hours, from 6 jets. From a small deck and a tiny hangar. Not bad going, in my book. But then, I'd expect you to disagree. Please do - open forums and all that.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the work for real,
Engines
Much as I am reluctant to get into a 'figures slanging' match with you, I think i have to pick you up on a couple of points:
1. CTOL wingspan was not dictated by parking on the Wasp. Nor, for that matter, was the STOVL wingspan.
2. Invincible class lift (not elevator, LIFT) size had absolutely no effect on design of any of the F-35 variants. Certainly not overall length. There was never an endorsed requirement for the F-35B to go down the lift. It was considered, but never included as a formal requirement.
3. Yep, the landing spots are being carefully checked for any damage, as this set of trials allows much more demanding conditions to be applied to the 'Thermion' coating. It's precisely what I'd expect to happen. It's normal trials activity. Honest.
4. The F-35B isn't carrying 'deadweight'. It's carrying the kit required to conduct STOVL ops, which is kind of the point of the F-35B. For completeness, perhaps you need to look at the weight delta (or 'deadweight'?) required to get the F-35C to carry out CATOBAR ops.
5. I expect that Marine CONOPS make sense to them and also to the USN. And the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who will have signed off on them. I know you won't agree with them, but honestly, I'll go with their judgement for now.
So, in around 13 days, 98 flights and 73 flying hours, from 6 jets. From a small deck and a tiny hangar. Not bad going, in my book. But then, I'd expect you to disagree. Please do - open forums and all that.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the work for real,
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 28th May 2015 at 16:42. Reason: Corrections