F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
GK121
How about researching some facts before you try to demonstrate your wisdom?
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf
"Likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete on the first VL."
These specs are current, landing pads are being built to them, and to date the F-35B has not been observed doing VL on any surface except such pads, concrete shielded by AM-2, or ship decks.
How about researching some facts before you try to demonstrate your wisdom?
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf
"Likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete on the first VL."
These specs are current, landing pads are being built to them, and to date the F-35B has not been observed doing VL on any surface except such pads, concrete shielded by AM-2, or ship decks.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Hmmm, how about some more F-35B STOVL Mode with 'creeping landings' and even perhaps Running Vertical Landings on long enough bits of suitable landing areas. Perhaps some rougher landing areas are even protected with AM-2 Matting - some not - if not required. Then there are the many variations of Short Take Offs, with a perhaps a Vertical Take Off from a suitable pizza oven?
All possibilites, of course, Spaz, but form the RAF perspective this was spotted as a bit of an operating issue over 8 yeears ago. The plan then was to spend a lot of money providing the surfaces at a secret base in northern Scotland for the B. The only problem was that it meant you couldn't operate it from any other UK base.
CM - That's the Republic of Scotland to you, sassenach.
Spaz - Creeping and rolling verticals? Will they be tested before IOC is declared? Not to rip on Arizona, but I'm sure there are a few byways in the desert around Yuma that could substitute for Nowhereistan-quality runways. VTO? Possibly if there's a tanker orbiting overhead.
ThinkDefence - Correctamundo, Sir. And a problem identified some years ago by a bloke in Washington who is tipped to be in a Very Senior Position in the 5-Sided Squirrel Cage.
Spaz - Creeping and rolling verticals? Will they be tested before IOC is declared? Not to rip on Arizona, but I'm sure there are a few byways in the desert around Yuma that could substitute for Nowhereistan-quality runways. VTO? Possibly if there's a tanker orbiting overhead.
ThinkDefence - Correctamundo, Sir. And a problem identified some years ago by a bloke in Washington who is tipped to be in a Very Senior Position in the 5-Sided Squirrel Cage.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
This is far more interesting than it seems at first glance. Not only does it imply that the USA is looking at totally withdrawing from the tactical nuclear role - and the protection that implies in Europe from Russian tactical nukes - but also that the USAF will be putting all it's cards into the B-2 and the next generation bomber as their nuclear force.
Former USAF Chief of Staff: Move Away From Nuclear F-35
Former USAF Chief of Staff: Move Away From Nuclear F-35
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
As I recall info is on this thread already (I'll look) that the 'creepy VL' and the RVL have been and I'll assume are being tested where ever the F-35B is at moment. The 'not every F-35B landing will be vertical' stuff has been out there for ages.
CreepyLandings for F-35B: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ng#post7767702
BTW, here is an 'LO' quote from the legendary past on another thread about the USMC strip length requirement [no reference given however]. Yes I have seen other references to the 3,000 feet required for the C-130s but not the 1,500 etc.... (quote near bottom of page reference below)
No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B? [Archive] - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums
CreepyLandings for F-35B: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ng#post7767702
BTW, here is an 'LO' quote from the legendary past on another thread about the USMC strip length requirement [no reference given however]. Yes I have seen other references to the 3,000 feet required for the C-130s but not the 1,500 etc.... (quote near bottom of page reference below)
"...USMC F-35B CONOPS do envisage forward strips, I think the strip length is 1200 ft. (Could be 1500, not sure).
I have never seen a KPP for land-based STO. However, as a practical matter the Marines never talk these days about less than 3,000 feet (it was 4,000 feet in their latest talking points to Congress). I suspect that has to do with getting KC-130s in and out...."
I have never seen a KPP for land-based STO. However, as a practical matter the Marines never talk these days about less than 3,000 feet (it was 4,000 feet in their latest talking points to Congress). I suspect that has to do with getting KC-130s in and out...."
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the gradual advent of precision guided munitions remove the point of having air-launched tactical nuclear weapons? Assisted by deterrence now being applied on smaller scales by moves to allow land and submarine launched ballistic missiles to adopt a sub-strategic role?
Is the idea of a nuclear-armed F35A not just a carry over from an early 1980s picture of a F4/F16/Buccanneer-led slow-motion approach to armageddon in the Fulda Gap?
An opponent who's earned themselves a nuclear strike is quite possibly in possession of a sufficiently integrated air defense system to make the reliable arrival of weapons from any sort of F35 at the target unlikely.
In this context, the USMC's proposed use of F35Bs against a colonial coast seems perhaps to be rather more realistic.
Is the idea of a nuclear-armed F35A not just a carry over from an early 1980s picture of a F4/F16/Buccanneer-led slow-motion approach to armageddon in the Fulda Gap?
An opponent who's earned themselves a nuclear strike is quite possibly in possession of a sufficiently integrated air defense system to make the reliable arrival of weapons from any sort of F35 at the target unlikely.
In this context, the USMC's proposed use of F35Bs against a colonial coast seems perhaps to be rather more realistic.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on, did the government not rule out any alternative to Trident on the basis that no alternatives really exist (that we could utilise), without being as, if not more expensive than Trident? Yet here we are talking about a nuclear strike capability on an aircraft we've been planning to acquire for over a decade and the lead customer claiming they need more people wanting a nuclear capability on it to make it viable...
Is it the whole national sovereignty nonsense that eliminated this option?
I've always been of the persuasion that we don't have nuclear weapons for the purpose of keeping us safe these days, but to keep us as a permanent member of the security council etc. This is of course my very humble opinion.
Is it the whole national sovereignty nonsense that eliminated this option?
I've always been of the persuasion that we don't have nuclear weapons for the purpose of keeping us safe these days, but to keep us as a permanent member of the security council etc. This is of course my very humble opinion.
Originally Posted by awblain
An opponent who's earned themselves a nuclear strike is quite possibly in possession of a sufficiently integrated air defense system to make the reliable arrival of weapons from any sort of F35 at the target unlikely.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
You're right - a nuclear-armed F35 shouldn't be any more vulnerable than a non-nuclear-armed one. I'm just concerned that an opponent able to rile you to a nuclear attack is probably able to field an air defense able to deal with an F35 arriving to deliver it.
If the F35 is to fire a stand-off weapon, then would it not just be cheaper and easier to use more conventional and cheaper tools to carry it to the launch point?
You're right - a nuclear-armed F35 shouldn't be any more vulnerable than a non-nuclear-armed one. I'm just concerned that an opponent able to rile you to a nuclear attack is probably able to field an air defense able to deal with an F35 arriving to deliver it.
If the F35 is to fire a stand-off weapon, then would it not just be cheaper and easier to use more conventional and cheaper tools to carry it to the launch point?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could a tactical nuke be used as some sort of last minute defence against incoming hypersonic vehicles? No idea just thought I would throw it out their!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rh200, probably not - I don't think all out nuclear warfare was expected to result in any nuclear fratricide with one's own warheads being taken out by previous detonations.
Depends how close the explosion was really, and any system designed to take out (somewhat faster) ICBM warheads should be able to deal with, if perhaps needing some modification, hypersonic vehicles. Anyhoo, getting a bit off topic.
Depends how close the explosion was really, and any system designed to take out (somewhat faster) ICBM warheads should be able to deal with, if perhaps needing some modification, hypersonic vehicles. Anyhoo, getting a bit off topic.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think all out nuclear warfare was expected to result in any nuclear fratricide with one's own warheads being taken out by previous detonations.
I think they did a demo of someone standing underneath on the ground whilst they set off a tactical nuke overhead. With the possibility of the Chinese being mass produce hypersonic vehicles I was wondering the brute force method had a place.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Gen III HMDS for 2014 Test Pilots
F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet 21 Jan 2014 Bill Carey, AINonline
F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet | Aviation International News
"F-35 test pilots will begin flying this year with a third-generation helmet mounted display system (HMDS) that incorporates modifications to the earlier-generation display system, which the Pentagon has identified as an F-35 program risk. The fixes the fighter program developed for the “Gen 3” helmet system persuaded the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to stop funding an alternate helmet-mounted display.
“I definitely have confidence that we are on the right track; we have the right plan for these fixes in place,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly...
...An ISIE 11 sensor based on Intevac Photonics’ patented electron bombarded activated pixel sensor (EBAPS) technology brings the system’s night-vision acuity closer to the 20/20 vision NVGs can provide....
...The Gen 2 helmet system’s latency, or response time at importing DAS imagery—measured in milliseconds—was not the problem testers thought it would be, Kelly said. Pilots just hadn’t had the opportunity to use the DAS sensor array during flight testing. Test pilots experienced display jitter in areas of the F-35 flight envelope that hadn’t been approved for training, he said. The program addressed the problem by integrating micro inertial measurement units and filtering algorithms in the HMDS to cancel out jitter effects. Pilots flew the fixes using a modified Gen 2 helmet.
“It’s still not perfect, but it’s the 95-percent solution and the major issue there is resolved,” Kelly said."
“I definitely have confidence that we are on the right track; we have the right plan for these fixes in place,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly...
...An ISIE 11 sensor based on Intevac Photonics’ patented electron bombarded activated pixel sensor (EBAPS) technology brings the system’s night-vision acuity closer to the 20/20 vision NVGs can provide....
...The Gen 2 helmet system’s latency, or response time at importing DAS imagery—measured in milliseconds—was not the problem testers thought it would be, Kelly said. Pilots just hadn’t had the opportunity to use the DAS sensor array during flight testing. Test pilots experienced display jitter in areas of the F-35 flight envelope that hadn’t been approved for training, he said. The program addressed the problem by integrating micro inertial measurement units and filtering algorithms in the HMDS to cancel out jitter effects. Pilots flew the fixes using a modified Gen 2 helmet.
“It’s still not perfect, but it’s the 95-percent solution and the major issue there is resolved,” Kelly said."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 22nd Jan 2014 at 05:21. Reason: Titel
So we have spent how much for sub-NVG acuity?
Oh well, I suppose this will hold things together until the contractor team can make a few more billion selling an "enhanced" helmet (and possibly a HUD backfit) using optical waveguide technology.
Oh well, I suppose this will hold things together until the contractor team can make a few more billion selling an "enhanced" helmet (and possibly a HUD backfit) using optical waveguide technology.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, thanks for this.
The nuclear F-35 requirement is interesting: it supposedly will cost $400m and the USAF isn't supposedly interested in paying for it.
However, the real question is what impact this has on the NATO allies who operate B-61s under dual-key (e.g., Germany, Netherlands, Italy) as part of NATO nuclear burden sharing. It isn't obvious that any of these states actually want B-61s (modernised or not), or what the actual military rationale for these weapons is.
However, IIRC, the political rationale is that Poland and the "new NATO" members are keen to have tactical nukes in Europe to deter the Russians. But, under the understanding with Moscow when the new members joined, there was an agreement / tacit understanding that no nuclear weapons would be deployed to the new NATO states, leaving the existing B-61 operators to continue to burden share.
What does this mean? Well, if the 200-odd B-61s are still politically valuable to the Alliance (and the Obama Administration seems less than convinced) then the burden sharers will need some nuclear capable aircraft post F-16/Tornado - meaning F-35s and Typhoon, presumably.
For the UK, this would also open the road to a freefall capability instead of SSBNs and massive costs savings to be re-rolled within the procurement budget. Won't happen, of course.
S41
The nuclear F-35 requirement is interesting: it supposedly will cost $400m and the USAF isn't supposedly interested in paying for it.
However, the real question is what impact this has on the NATO allies who operate B-61s under dual-key (e.g., Germany, Netherlands, Italy) as part of NATO nuclear burden sharing. It isn't obvious that any of these states actually want B-61s (modernised or not), or what the actual military rationale for these weapons is.
However, IIRC, the political rationale is that Poland and the "new NATO" members are keen to have tactical nukes in Europe to deter the Russians. But, under the understanding with Moscow when the new members joined, there was an agreement / tacit understanding that no nuclear weapons would be deployed to the new NATO states, leaving the existing B-61 operators to continue to burden share.
What does this mean? Well, if the 200-odd B-61s are still politically valuable to the Alliance (and the Obama Administration seems less than convinced) then the burden sharers will need some nuclear capable aircraft post F-16/Tornado - meaning F-35s and Typhoon, presumably.
For the UK, this would also open the road to a freefall capability instead of SSBNs and massive costs savings to be re-rolled within the procurement budget. Won't happen, of course.
S41
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Genie with a warhead of a couple of kilotons. Pretty sure that was one of the tests they mentioned when I went on a tour of the test site a few years ago.