Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 16th Oct 2014, 15:49
  #5301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Yes, all the above, but it will be safe in the bottom of an active volcanoes filled with sulphuric acid. All the qualities you may never need.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2014, 14:52
  #5302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
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?
Snafu351 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2014, 15:49
  #5303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 53
Posts: 799
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?
Beacuse they desired one airframe to do it all. "First day of war" when supersonic & stealth is needed- kick the door down. Then after air superiority is achieved you can revert to normal mud moving and close support the MAG is designed for. V/STOL desired at all times so you can operate from LHA/LHD and forward strips- does not require carriers or land bases.

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.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2014, 22:49
  #5304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
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".
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 12:19
  #5305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
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.
Snafu351 is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 13:58
  #5306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
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)
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 14:03
  #5307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
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.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2014, 22:05
  #5308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,508
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.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 07:03
  #5309 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,389
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..........
ORAC is online now  
Old 24th Oct 2014, 12:30
  #5310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
That idea makes less sense than a gumtree full of shickered koalas.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 06:48
  #5311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
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
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 08:49
  #5312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,615
Bastardeux, unfortunately your link is largely blocked by the Dirty Digger's paywall......
BEagle is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 14:23
  #5313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
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
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 14:45
  #5314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,508
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.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 20:09
  #5315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 80
Posts: 1,510
It may not be cancelled but it isn't in service anywhere either SFAIK
A2QFI is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 22:39
  #5316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 893
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
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 23:01
  #5317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Yes - about that....

Pentagon Acquisition Chief Doubts UMSC?s July F-35 IOC Target | Defense content from Aviation Week
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2014, 23:47
  #5318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
RAFEngO74to09,

"In service"? Three years before likely IOC? And all that PR bollocks by McCain and the heads of LM? Even by this thread's standards, this has got to be a new low.

Some wonderful lines in the first vid:
Yet another milestone

The very best fighter in the world today

Very committed to our customer and to out international partners around the world

...to deliver these airplanes on schedule and on budget
Well we should all believe that old tripe. And great news regarding the unit cost from The Telegraph yesterday:
Lockheed Martin would not give details of the cost of each aircraft until the contract is finalised
Let's hope the UK signs up to that deal!
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2014, 21:28
  #5319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,508
RAFEngo:

The acid test will be when the USMC actually deploys a det, or a squadron, of F-35B's. I am not sure they are ready to do that yet.

We'll see how things go in the coming year.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2014, 01:06
  #5320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Indeed, LoneWolf.
Courtney Mil is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.