F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Eaglemmoomin
Combat UAV's are decades off being actually useful. Anyone that honestly thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Personally I think it'll be a long road full of cock ups and issues. Getting a 'simple' surveillance UAV that stays up for a few hours and flys defined racetracks with it's sensors being preset reliably and consistently is still a massive technical effort and the UK, France, Europe isn't really quite there yet. So CUAVs nah, simple demonstrator maybe. Something that will actually be able to replace a Tornado, Typhoon, F35 and the simplest tasks they are asked to do in the next 20 to 25 years hmmmmmm.
I understand what you are saying and I agree these aircraft are a way off but they are possibly the next stage in carrier aircraft??
Link
They have already been launched the X-47B via catapult but from what I read they did have similar tail-hook issues which were comparable to the F-35C but hopefully this has now been resolved.
The sad thing is that we have NO capability to operate this type of aircraft and once the 'B' retires that is it.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by the time the 'B' retires, and probably for a good period before that, carrier aviation as you know it will be impossible due to the rise of precision guided ballistic munitions.
All you need is for the Iranians (or someone else) to really mass produce the stuff they already have designed and you can wave your capital ships goodbye......they'll need to stand so far off the target that you may as well use land-based assets.
of course......pulsed beam weapons or better point defence ABM systems may reduce the risk.......but if there are enough ballistic warheads they are always eventually going to overwhelm the defence.
Give it a few years and the new carriers are going to be nothing but floating garages, too insecure to be allowed within 2000 miles of an enemy coast, except maybe when on a ferry mission. Whats the combat radius of a "B"?
of course maybe they could be used for peacekeeping purposes, or situations such as the Sierra Leone action, but using a ship and aircraft of that expense for that is rather overkill. A converted cargo ship with a flight of armed Tucanos would be a better solution
All you need is for the Iranians (or someone else) to really mass produce the stuff they already have designed and you can wave your capital ships goodbye......they'll need to stand so far off the target that you may as well use land-based assets.
of course......pulsed beam weapons or better point defence ABM systems may reduce the risk.......but if there are enough ballistic warheads they are always eventually going to overwhelm the defence.
Give it a few years and the new carriers are going to be nothing but floating garages, too insecure to be allowed within 2000 miles of an enemy coast, except maybe when on a ferry mission. Whats the combat radius of a "B"?
of course maybe they could be used for peacekeeping purposes, or situations such as the Sierra Leone action, but using a ship and aircraft of that expense for that is rather overkill. A converted cargo ship with a flight of armed Tucanos would be a better solution
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Milo
by the time the 'B' retires, and probably for a good period before that, carrier aviation as you know it will be impossible due to the rise of precision guided ballistic munitions.
If there is one thing that is a certainty, it is the fact that we have had no luck in predicting what will happen next week, next month, or next year. Having said that I very much doubt we will engage in any type of total war against any first world nation (touching wood as I type)
The conventional carrier is still an excellent weapon for projecting a nations power, but will it in twenty years or fifty years time? The USA is still going ahead with their latest class of carrier. Here in the UK we have lost this expertise and most folks only look at the carrier as an advanced airfield whereas the USA look at this unit as being their 'spokesperson' that lets folks know they mean business.
I totally accept we are having the B variant but if the RAF were asked what aircraft would they opt for if they had to only have one type of fast jet for both air and ground operations, what aircraft would they choose and why?
I am still baffled as to why the very first drawing for our carriers were not for conventional ships. It is ironic that retired First Sea Lord's are now complaining about this but when in a position to voice an opinion they allegedly ducked behind the parapets and kept quiet.
Originally Posted by glojo
If there is one thing that is a certainty, it is the fact that we have had no luck in predicting what will happen next week, next month, or next year. Having said that I very much doubt we will engage in any type of total war against any first world nation (touching wood as I type)
If only something had been done to reduce that capability gap and to prepare for future carrier operations. I tried to outline some thoughts on the Harrier thread, but encountered a great deal of hostility and a refusal to look beyond the party line. Yet the issues are still unresolved.
Additional delays can only increase the risks - both in terms of capability gaps and the skills of carrier personnel.
Milo
You might note the development of anti ballistic missile systems. Will an enemy really be willing to expend a significant number of ballistic missiles against a single target?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 7th Jul 2013 at 21:09.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You might note the development of anti ballistic missile systems. "
Problem is the ship is never going to have enough ABM defences to cope with a massed attack. What would it take? Ten synchronised missiles to overwhelm the defence?
Problem is the ship is never going to have enough ABM defences to cope with a massed attack. What would it take? Ten synchronised missiles to overwhelm the defence?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with you, this ballistic missile threat is serious. The first thing we should do is ensure that our airfields can move, thereby making the targeteer's job infinitely harder.
We should also invest in some form of aircraft that doesn't need a long, thin bit of tarmac, easily identified on Google Earth to operate from.
Next we should invest in an aeroplane that can fight these real baddies but also all the other nations - the ones without this BM capability, but with systems I believe to be called SAMs. Some form of LO should crack it.
If only there were some way of combining the three. Hmmm.
We should also invest in some form of aircraft that doesn't need a long, thin bit of tarmac, easily identified on Google Earth to operate from.
Next we should invest in an aeroplane that can fight these real baddies but also all the other nations - the ones without this BM capability, but with systems I believe to be called SAMs. Some form of LO should crack it.
If only there were some way of combining the three. Hmmm.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, there may be another delay for F-35.
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 7th Jul 2013 at 06:14.
Because Gilmore's been wrong every time he's reported that the JSF test schedule is at risk, according to the documentary evidence that Mr Foxtrot Alpha will now present to us. 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its common knowledge that I am forty years or so distant from my service, but I know enough folk,(including my own son), that drone software and integration is a lot more advanced than most seem to think.
You can't fly them in civil airspace at all and use in military airspace is an evolving area. The MAA doesn't seem to know what to do about them. There's only sense and avoid studies going on at the moment.
Whats the persistence, redundancy and reliability of the datalinks like because I can't see us splashing on satellite based datalinks just because of coverage and cost implications and we'd also need ground control stations fitting out also. So we are either buggered for range or entirely dependent upon the US to even fly the darn things (what happens when US priorities supercede ours we'd be up the creek).
Having one take off do a circuit around the airbase and land in a controlled contractor test environment possible But thats a far cry from an operational environment.
All of the other stuff is miles off I think based upon the information in the public domain.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
View from the AFT Island - FlyCo / LSO (wot? not on deck!?) :-)
Of islands and moles 5 July 2013 | By David Downs
Of islands and moles | Opinion | The Engineer
"...the huge aft island was lifted into place. Now the only significant structural units remaining to be installed are the extreme aft corners of the flight deck Sponsons SP11 and SP12.
Since it was shipped in March this year a lot of work has been done on the forward island to structurally consolidate it to the sponson structure below, to connect the gas turbine and diesel uptake and downtake trunking and to progress the system installation across the boundary. The island is at an advanced stage of outfit with the majority of the Mission System and other equipment already installed. The protective coverings on three of the windows in the observation bridge, one deck below the main bridge, have been replaced with perspex sheets so that the view forward and across the flight deck to port can be seen.
The design of the forward island and the open bridge wings and platforms provide a surprisingly good all round view considering the constraints of an aircraft carrier geometry. The view forward and to starboard is excellent with the bow of the ship being incongruously apparently a long way away to port.
There cannot be many ships where it is possible to see the bulbous bow from the bridge even when in dry dock. The view aft to the aircraft lifts is also excellent and across the wide expanse of flight deck.
Whereas the forward island is predominantly about navigating the ship, the aft island is all about flying control. The aft island has been built at BAE Systems yard at Scotstoun on the Clyde and in June was loaded out onto a barge and transported to Rosyth arriving under the iconic Forth Bridge on 21st June and shortly afterwards brought ashore. It was lifted into place on July 1, with a brief ceremony marking the occasion. Like the forward island, which was built at Portsmouth, the aft island is at a very high state of completion and on structural consolidation the Flyco compartment, which has been built as a module by TEX ATC ltd will be installed onto the seats on the port side of the island. This Flyco structure is arranged over two deck levels and includes huge windows giving unrivalled views across the flight deck and up the glide path where incoming aircraft will be approaching. It contains banks of consoles from which the Flying Control Officer and Landing Safety Officer will operate. The ergonomics of this compartment are vital to the efficient flying operations of the aircraft carrier and during the design phase a wooden full scale mock-up of the Flyco was manufactured at Portsmouth and used to carry out simulated operations to prove the design...."
Since it was shipped in March this year a lot of work has been done on the forward island to structurally consolidate it to the sponson structure below, to connect the gas turbine and diesel uptake and downtake trunking and to progress the system installation across the boundary. The island is at an advanced stage of outfit with the majority of the Mission System and other equipment already installed. The protective coverings on three of the windows in the observation bridge, one deck below the main bridge, have been replaced with perspex sheets so that the view forward and across the flight deck to port can be seen.
The design of the forward island and the open bridge wings and platforms provide a surprisingly good all round view considering the constraints of an aircraft carrier geometry. The view forward and to starboard is excellent with the bow of the ship being incongruously apparently a long way away to port.
There cannot be many ships where it is possible to see the bulbous bow from the bridge even when in dry dock. The view aft to the aircraft lifts is also excellent and across the wide expanse of flight deck.
Whereas the forward island is predominantly about navigating the ship, the aft island is all about flying control. The aft island has been built at BAE Systems yard at Scotstoun on the Clyde and in June was loaded out onto a barge and transported to Rosyth arriving under the iconic Forth Bridge on 21st June and shortly afterwards brought ashore. It was lifted into place on July 1, with a brief ceremony marking the occasion. Like the forward island, which was built at Portsmouth, the aft island is at a very high state of completion and on structural consolidation the Flyco compartment, which has been built as a module by TEX ATC ltd will be installed onto the seats on the port side of the island. This Flyco structure is arranged over two deck levels and includes huge windows giving unrivalled views across the flight deck and up the glide path where incoming aircraft will be approaching. It contains banks of consoles from which the Flying Control Officer and Landing Safety Officer will operate. The ergonomics of this compartment are vital to the efficient flying operations of the aircraft carrier and during the design phase a wooden full scale mock-up of the Flyco was manufactured at Portsmouth and used to carry out simulated operations to prove the design...."
And it isn't just QE that's coming on apace. This useful little link gives a feel for PoW as well. They're managing to install 10km of cabling per week in one of PoW lower blocks.
Programme update - Aircraft Carrier Alliance
Still some way off delivery, but impressive progress nonetheless.
Programme update - Aircraft Carrier Alliance
Still some way off delivery, but impressive progress nonetheless.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF-16 drone arrives for testing, prepares warfighters for tomorrow's threats
Be interesting to see "lightnin2" crew moral nosedive when a drone viper comes to play...
Be interesting to see "lightnin2" crew moral nosedive when a drone viper comes to play...
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because Gilmore's been wrong every time he's reported that the JSF test schedule is at risk, according to the documentary evidence that Mr Foxtrot Alpha will now present to us.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by glad rag
QF-16 drone arrives for testing, prepares warfighters for tomorrow's threats
Be interesting to see "lightnin2" crew moral nosedive when a drone viper comes to play...
Be interesting to see "lightnin2" crew moral nosedive when a drone viper comes to play...
What that has to do with the F-35 is purely in the imagination of the poster.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bi...oops...LowObservable
Because Gilmore's been wrong every time he's reported that the JSF test schedule is at risk, according to the documentary evidence that Mr Foxtrot Alpha will now present to us.
Anyway, have been asked to tone it down by my own mods, so will be reverting to a passive mode for a while.
Play nice kids!
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 9th Jul 2013 at 05:14.
I'm sure John Boyd's spirit appreciates the turning circle photo....but the Viper drone should (I repeat, should...) never get close enough to the F35 for it to be an issue. Should, however, is not a principle of war.....
UAVs/RPAS/UCAV etc will all have an increasingly significant role to play in the future - if for no other reason than it's an industrial revenue stream.
Re the ballistic threat to CVs - the threat is not imagined. However, perhaps the development and deployment of DEWs over the next few decades will provide a significant degree of protection from swarm missile/UCAV attacks.
UAVs/RPAS/UCAV etc will all have an increasingly significant role to play in the future - if for no other reason than it's an industrial revenue stream.
Re the ballistic threat to CVs - the threat is not imagined. However, perhaps the development and deployment of DEWs over the next few decades will provide a significant degree of protection from swarm missile/UCAV attacks.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an rough illustration of predicted turn rates 
Credibility, hmm?
Like putting up a chart with milestones that were mostly missed, some by double-digit months?
Like asserting that "if you don't follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble", weeks before the program office director gets the boot?
Lexington Institute
Or like announcing "Burbage also expressed increased confidence in the program, and acknowledged that most early challenges have been overcome" at a point where the new government managers were just beginning to realize that the program needed another 4-6 years?
Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_LockheedMartinF-35Centerp
One of the culprits here went on to his next star, another is still a well remunerated LM consultant and the third retired with honors, and nobody on the program has ever explained why these public statements were so widely at odds with reality.
Credibility my
.
Like putting up a chart with milestones that were mostly missed, some by double-digit months?
Like asserting that "if you don't follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble", weeks before the program office director gets the boot?
Lexington Institute
Or like announcing "Burbage also expressed increased confidence in the program, and acknowledged that most early challenges have been overcome" at a point where the new government managers were just beginning to realize that the program needed another 4-6 years?
Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_LockheedMartinF-35Centerp
One of the culprits here went on to his next star, another is still a well remunerated LM consultant and the third retired with honors, and nobody on the program has ever explained why these public statements were so widely at odds with reality.
Credibility my
.
Last edited by LowObservable; 9th Jul 2013 at 16:23.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the culprits here went on to his next star, another is still a well remunerated LM consultant and the third retired with honors, and nobody on the program has ever explained why these public statements were so widely at odds with reality.
JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
They have already been launched the X-47B via catapult but from what I read they did have similar tail-hook issues which were comparable to the F-35C but hopefully this has now been resolved.
The X-47B is only catching 10 percent of its wires on land, and in the first video released showing it trapping on the runway it was using its 3rd hook fix.
Dont ask for a link, I don't have one. I have a friend who works out there. I know if a bunch of reporters were asked to come and see the F-35C strut its stuff on a CVN, and it only did the cat and not the trap their alarm bells would be ringing. No one wants to get black balled though so they play along, and it avoids the F-35(C) level of criticism.
