F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
'LO' thanks for the chiselled link. Gen. Carlisle thinks F-35 is good value and that is the rub - value for the money. Is there extra value for the extra money? Some people clearly think so.
The Reshaping of Pacific Defense: Interview With PacAF Gen. Hawk Carlisle
By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on November 26, 2013
The Reshaping of Pacific Defense: Interview With PacAF Gen. Hawk Carlisle « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
The Reshaping of Pacific Defense: Interview With PacAF Gen. Hawk Carlisle
By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on November 26, 2013
"...“The F-35 is the finest sensor-enabled aircraft ever built. The F-35 is orders of magnitude better than the F-22 (which is the greatest air to air fighter ever built) as an electronic warfare enabled sensor-rich aircraft...."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Engines
...there is no mileage in trying to compare the F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their designs are equally good, but with different compromises.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All these discussions in the end boil down to price, how much do we pay for it and what can it do.
Like General Bogdan so poetically said not too long ago, the risk is that we'll be paying for a Ferrari while getting a Chevrolet.
The F22 or Typhoon might well be also Ferrari or Porsche priced but they do deliver accordingly with plenty of room ,spare space, weight growth margins, engine margins, etc... to make them good for at least the following 40 years, I'm even less convinced today that the F35 has the same margins.
Raytheon had a good piece about the doubtful future of Stealth a couple of weeks ago, the best part of the F35, it's sensor suite, is perfectly usable by all kind of weapons platforms be it partially or as a whole ever since 2010 according to Northrop,
Even the Chinese are not betting on stealth for their next mainline fighter(s), the J20 will be a low volume fighter bomber, the J31 is deemed only good for export, they are going with 1200 J10's + all the Sukhoi ripoffs they are currently building.
The PAK-FA level of stealthiness is nowhere near that of any of the US
LO fighters, it is first and foremost a very high performance machine a la F22 and EF.
I just don't see how a 1 engined 60,000 or 70,000 lbs fighter is useful for nations like mine or as the main fighter for the US DoD, about 1/3-1/2 more fuel consumption ,also means 1/3-1/2 more tanker offload need.
It is too much machine for the bulk of the conflicts we fight or will fight in the future and it is the wrong weapon to fight it's sole credible adversary (the Chinese) if things ever come so far.
As an example, just look at the S-Koreans, please tell me why they need the F35, apart from numbers the N-Koreans have nothing that even remotely poses a threat to the S-Koreans and in the unlikely event the S-Koreans need to strike first (the nuclear danger), Long range SAM weapons , cruise missiles, Drones (think X47/Taranis-like) or brute full frontal attack are all more suitable than a limited force of F35's with a very limited weapon-load in case they want to stay stealthy.
It's bad for our finances
It's bad for our forces.
It's bad for our future defense industry.
Like General Bogdan so poetically said not too long ago, the risk is that we'll be paying for a Ferrari while getting a Chevrolet.
The F22 or Typhoon might well be also Ferrari or Porsche priced but they do deliver accordingly with plenty of room ,spare space, weight growth margins, engine margins, etc... to make them good for at least the following 40 years, I'm even less convinced today that the F35 has the same margins.
Raytheon had a good piece about the doubtful future of Stealth a couple of weeks ago, the best part of the F35, it's sensor suite, is perfectly usable by all kind of weapons platforms be it partially or as a whole ever since 2010 according to Northrop,
Even the Chinese are not betting on stealth for their next mainline fighter(s), the J20 will be a low volume fighter bomber, the J31 is deemed only good for export, they are going with 1200 J10's + all the Sukhoi ripoffs they are currently building.
The PAK-FA level of stealthiness is nowhere near that of any of the US
LO fighters, it is first and foremost a very high performance machine a la F22 and EF.
I just don't see how a 1 engined 60,000 or 70,000 lbs fighter is useful for nations like mine or as the main fighter for the US DoD, about 1/3-1/2 more fuel consumption ,also means 1/3-1/2 more tanker offload need.
It is too much machine for the bulk of the conflicts we fight or will fight in the future and it is the wrong weapon to fight it's sole credible adversary (the Chinese) if things ever come so far.
As an example, just look at the S-Koreans, please tell me why they need the F35, apart from numbers the N-Koreans have nothing that even remotely poses a threat to the S-Koreans and in the unlikely event the S-Koreans need to strike first (the nuclear danger), Long range SAM weapons , cruise missiles, Drones (think X47/Taranis-like) or brute full frontal attack are all more suitable than a limited force of F35's with a very limited weapon-load in case they want to stay stealthy.
It's bad for our finances
It's bad for our forces.
It's bad for our future defense industry.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-22 Toxicity City
Interesting to see how toxic the F-22 is for some....
http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf (6.8Mb)
http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf (6.8Mb)
First, I believe that some people could interview Kim Kardashian about the F-35 and the published result would have her using the (squishy) term "synergy" eight times.
Second, Spaz, you need to upgrade your reading skills because Gen Carlisle never mentioned value for money, or the cost of the F-35, at all. He's already inventing ways to deploy F-22s in four-packs because the jet was too costly to buy in planned numbers. And he (and his successors and the AF in general) will have to decide what they want to sacrifice to get the F-35.
Second, Spaz, you need to upgrade your reading skills because Gen Carlisle never mentioned value for money, or the cost of the F-35, at all. He's already inventing ways to deploy F-22s in four-packs because the jet was too costly to buy in planned numbers. And he (and his successors and the AF in general) will have to decide what they want to sacrifice to get the F-35.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
The last para is a worry if correctly quoted - perhaps quote refers to actual tests on a carrier rather than previously reported ashore testing this month?
Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use 04 Dec 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use | Reuters
Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use 04 Dec 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...But the plane's ability to combine data from a host of different sensors and share it with other aircraft made it "a vastly superior airplane" than current warplanes, he [Bogdan] said.
"What makes the airplane leaps and bounds better than legacy airplanes," he said, "is the ability to know what's going on around it when it comes to other airplanes and other threats, and its ability to take that information and give the pilot a very clear picture and then give that picture to a lot of other people who don't have the sophisticated sensors that we have."
He declined to give details since some of those attributes are classified, but said testing of the software that would provide the "360-degree situational awareness" was going well.
"Some of that stuff is in the classified realm, so people don't understand it and we can't talk freely about it," he said. "Until we get out there and prove that, people are going to be naturally hesitant because that is a leap above what we have today. It makes everybody in the battlespace smarter."...
...Bogdan said the Navy version of the new fighter was also making progress, and testing of a redesigned tail hook that allows the plane to land on aircraft carriers would begin in coming months after completion of a critical design review."
"What makes the airplane leaps and bounds better than legacy airplanes," he said, "is the ability to know what's going on around it when it comes to other airplanes and other threats, and its ability to take that information and give the pilot a very clear picture and then give that picture to a lot of other people who don't have the sophisticated sensors that we have."
He declined to give details since some of those attributes are classified, but said testing of the software that would provide the "360-degree situational awareness" was going well.
"Some of that stuff is in the classified realm, so people don't understand it and we can't talk freely about it," he said. "Until we get out there and prove that, people are going to be naturally hesitant because that is a leap above what we have today. It makes everybody in the battlespace smarter."...
...Bogdan said the Navy version of the new fighter was also making progress, and testing of a redesigned tail hook that allows the plane to land on aircraft carriers would begin in coming months after completion of a critical design review."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
and then give that picture to a lot of other people who don't have the sophisticated sensors that we have."
Good point, Orac. Short of a dedicated gateway that problem is far from solved.
And wossis about hook testing in the coming months, after a CDR? Last month there were going to be hook tests this month.
And apropos of value, nobody asked the General whether he thought two 400nm/2000 lb F-35Bs were worth as much as three 600 nm/4000 lb F-35As.
And wossis about hook testing in the coming months, after a CDR? Last month there were going to be hook tests this month.
And apropos of value, nobody asked the General whether he thought two 400nm/2000 lb F-35Bs were worth as much as three 600 nm/4000 lb F-35As.
Last edited by LowObservable; 5th Dec 2013 at 12:24.
Its 584 nautical miles for the F-35A versus 469 nm for the B
F-35's Range Falls Short of Predictions | Defense News | defensenews.com
Comparing the B to the Harrier would be more relevant,
F-35's Range Falls Short of Predictions | Defense News | defensenews.com
Comparing the B to the Harrier would be more relevant,
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The T-X is going to be a potential serious contender for much of the potential order volume of the F35.
Today SaaB and Boeing officially team-up.
Boeing, Saab team up for USAF T-X requirement
About the T-X
Even with the question of areal refuelling and the somewhat vague statement that " it is unlikely that potential combat performance will be considered" this whole project seems ever more likely to be the version of today's real LWF.
2023 would be about perfect for most of the current M2000, F5, F16 and F18 users, even the US NAVY might somehow still be involved , certainly with something like an Americanized Gripen.
Today SaaB and Boeing officially team-up.
Boeing, Saab team up for USAF T-X requirement
Under the two companies' joint development agreement, Boeing will act as the prime contractor and Saab the primary partner, Boeing said in a statement. The partnership will deal with all aspects of the bid, including design, development, production, support, sales and marketing.....
The T-X competition is likely to be among the USAF’s biggest acquisition programmes in the coming decade. The USAF strategy for the T-X is still evolving. The service had released proposed requirements for an off-the-shelf aircraft, with the Korea Aerospace/Lockheed Martin T-50, Alenia Aermacchi T-100 derivative of the M-346 and the BAE Systems Hawk T2 each expressing interest.
The Boeing/Saab partnership for T-X raises the strong possibility that the pair’s offer will draw heavily on the Swedish company’s single-engined Gripen fighter.
The T-X competition is likely to be among the USAF’s biggest acquisition programmes in the coming decade. The USAF strategy for the T-X is still evolving. The service had released proposed requirements for an off-the-shelf aircraft, with the Korea Aerospace/Lockheed Martin T-50, Alenia Aermacchi T-100 derivative of the M-346 and the BAE Systems Hawk T2 each expressing interest.
The Boeing/Saab partnership for T-X raises the strong possibility that the pair’s offer will draw heavily on the Swedish company’s single-engined Gripen fighter.
One of the driving requirements for the new trainer will be to help prepare pilots for the increased complexity in some areas, particularly information management, that are a part of fifth generation jet fighters like the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. The aircraft and simulation system will have to fulfil several basic training roles; basic aircraft control, airman-ship, formation, instrument and navigation, advanced air-to-air, advanced air-to-ground, and advanced crew/cockpit resource management. Furthermore, there are five advanced training roles that the system is expected to fulfil; sustained high-G operations, aerial refuelling, night vision imaging systems operations, air-to-air intercepts, and data-link operations. The 2009 Request For Information (RFI) mentions that some tasks, such as aerial refuelling, may be performed in the simulator and not on the aircraft itself.[8]
Additionally, while the RFI is specifically for a USAF trainer, it asks potential suppliers about the feasibility of a fighter/attack variant of the aircraft and a carrier-capable variant for the United States Navy.[8] However, the requirements manager for the program, Dave McDonald, has stated that it is unlikely that potential combat performance will be considered.
Additionally, while the RFI is specifically for a USAF trainer, it asks potential suppliers about the feasibility of a fighter/attack variant of the aircraft and a carrier-capable variant for the United States Navy.[8] However, the requirements manager for the program, Dave McDonald, has stated that it is unlikely that potential combat performance will be considered.
2023 would be about perfect for most of the current M2000, F5, F16 and F18 users, even the US NAVY might somehow still be involved , certainly with something like an Americanized Gripen.
this whole project seems ever more likely to be the version of today's real LWF.
I think Boeing are chancing their arm and as for the carrier version, are they proposing the navy throw away their Goshawks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engines
...there is no mileage in trying to compare the
F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their
designs are equally good, but with different
compromises.
Arguably the smartest thing ever said on this thread!
Originally Posted by Engines
...there is no mileage in trying to compare the
F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their
designs are equally good, but with different
compromises.
Arguably the smartest thing ever said on this thread!
...certainly with something like
an Americanized Gripen.
an Americanized Gripen.
Not sure about that. The USAF should really set a minimum spec and go for lowest through-life cost - Boeing has courted Saab for that, not for the Gripen design per se.
On the other hand, the USAF uses T-38s and the Navy uses F-5s for a lot of non-training things, like companion aircraft for expensive F-22s and as aggressors. If I was writing the T-X requirement I would not let those things drive me to a supersonic T-X, but I might consider what I could do with a low-cost, modern fighter as a lead-in/aggressor/companion.
And if I was Boeing-Saab I would be sniffing around Guard and Reserve units and pointing out that it might be a long time before they get F-35s, and wouldn't they rather be doing air defense and CAS with a hot new fighter rather than flying UAVs?
Peter We - T-X is not a T-45 replacement and there is no requirement that it be off-the-shelf. Even the "existing airframe" designs will (according to all precedent) end up being highly customized.
On the other hand, the USAF uses T-38s and the Navy uses F-5s for a lot of non-training things, like companion aircraft for expensive F-22s and as aggressors. If I was writing the T-X requirement I would not let those things drive me to a supersonic T-X, but I might consider what I could do with a low-cost, modern fighter as a lead-in/aggressor/companion.
And if I was Boeing-Saab I would be sniffing around Guard and Reserve units and pointing out that it might be a long time before they get F-35s, and wouldn't they rather be doing air defense and CAS with a hot new fighter rather than flying UAVs?
Peter We - T-X is not a T-45 replacement and there is no requirement that it be off-the-shelf. Even the "existing airframe" designs will (according to all precedent) end up being highly customized.
Sorry, I mere quoted the article, as its FlightGlobal which I would consider trustworthy.
But you never miss the opportunity to demonstrate what a ****head you are, do you?
The service had released proposed requirements for an off-the-shelf aircraft, with the Korea Aerospace/Lockheed Martin T-50, Alenia Aermacchi T-100 derivative of the M-346 and the BAE Systems Hawk T2 each expressing interest.
Now, if that quote was indeed accurate, would it not be rather odd that Boeing would be proposing something that the USAF had specifically ruled out?
That's not even fact-checking. It's called thinking. And of the many posters here, you are building up one of the worst track records of making assertions that are simply not true.
"The F-35 is NOT in production"
"The LIRP prices for the B includes the Liftfan (but not the engine)"
"Once production numbers start being built in 2017 the F-35 will probably cost the same as a SH. Possibly less"
& so on. So regardless of what your **** means, I haven't even started being the kind of ****head I can be, but I promise that I'll get there if you don't start engaging your brain before hitting the keyboard.
That's not even fact-checking. It's called thinking. And of the many posters here, you are building up one of the worst track records of making assertions that are simply not true.
"The F-35 is NOT in production"
"The LIRP prices for the B includes the Liftfan (but not the engine)"
"Once production numbers start being built in 2017 the F-35 will probably cost the same as a SH. Possibly less"
& so on. So regardless of what your **** means, I haven't even started being the kind of ****head I can be, but I promise that I'll get there if you don't start engaging your brain before hitting the keyboard.