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 29th Nov 2014, 19:54
  #5421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 394
SD89,

I think the point is about fighter capability/performance.

The F-35 will be the single platform in many airforces and is being sold on the premise that it will dominate in air-air for the next few decades.

The majority of aircraft you mention are fighter bombers with little or no air-air capability. Harrier, A-7 and Tornado. Yes the F-104 was a failed fighter and found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber.

The Super Hornet is underwhelming at air- air (partially like the F-35) it relies on a cutting edge sensors to give it advantage. I'm sure the USN would have loved something much better but ended up taking what they could. Like F-35 how capable the F-18F will look in a couple of decades will be interesting.

I'd argue that the F4 was the only aircraft on your list that was dominant at air-air when it entered service. I think the lack of gun and unsuitability for low-level subsonic turning fights is a bit of a red herring - it could outperform the Mig 21 and certainly enter and leave a fight at its own choosing.

I think the F4's performance excess (over it rivals and contemporaries) is largely the factor that has ensured it longevity as a fighter.

I can think of no other fighter that has been successful and did not have a performance margin over its rivals. Will the F-35 buck that trend?
typerated is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 21:58
  #5422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,616
Courtney Mil wrote:
Stealth is a double-edged sword. In an environment without V/UHF radar, yeah, it's an advantage. Head on, the RCS is impressively small. Other aspects are not so good. It doesn't make one invisible, only the Klingons can do that. The other edge is all about the compromises already mentioned.
Romulans surely?

From some geek website (which I assure I only found a few minutes ago by Googling...):

Klingon cloaking device:
Similar to the Romulan cloaking device, the Klingons received this technology from the Romulans circa 2268, when the two civilizations shared a political alliance. The Klingons outfitted many ships, particularly their Bird-of-Prey type vessels with the devices.

In 2293 the Klingons tested an experimental Bird-of-Prey that could operate its weapons while cloaked. Captain Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-A and his crew were able to improvise a method to track the ship, eliminating the tactical edge that the Klingon ship would have otherwise enjoyed in starship combat.
And if some foreign power improvises a similar method to defeat the stealth capability of the F-35, all that costly 'first day' development will have been worthless....
BEagle is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 22:18
  #5423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,233
Yes the F-104 was a failed fighter and found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber.
Are you sure you aren't being over generous describing the F-104 as having found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber? My recollections are that this was the very role which earned it a variety of less than reassuring nick names;

Widow Maker, Flying Coffin, German Jump Jet, etc and the old joke about how easy it was to make a start in the scrap metal business in West Germany, just rent a field and wait for a formation of F-104s to happen along.

I think it was quickly overshadowed in the high altitude interception role (puttng it in the same genre as the English Electric Lightning, J-35 Draken, F-102, F-106 etc) by later more reliable types such as the afore mentioned F-4, which was a much more versatile fighter.

FB

But again, I bow to the greater wisdom of others here abouts!
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 22:28
  #5424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,233
RAF's next-gen fighter passes key weapons test ahead of 2018 lift-off * | Daily Mail Online

Here's a hot off the press report from the Mail, I believe it is to be published in tomorrow's Mail on Sunday.

FB

Last edited by Finningley Boy; 30th Nov 2014 at 00:17.
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 22:47
  #5425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Would it be fair to ask why this trial has the weapons loaded to negate those oh so
expensivly developed stealth/internal weapon carriage systems?

I believe a previous poster used the term "turkey " well he may well be correct.
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 22:50
  #5426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,159
OK, so, Dave-B has carried the ASRAAM and PW-IV externally, does this mean that internal carriage clearance has already been done? Which is kinda the whole point of the F-35 concept...

-RP

Ah, glad rag kinda beat me too it!
Rhino power is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 23:05
  #5427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Sorry for the double posting there folks, but I also noticed the angles of the asraam on the outer station another compromise?

Or could we all be missing the real point off this P R release...
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2014, 23:09
  #5428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Sandiego, Tornado ADV was the replacement for Lightning and Phantom, not IDS.

Of the air-to-air types you listed, at least they were better than using Harrier (not Sea Harrier) or A4G as air defence.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 00:10
  #5429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
Whingeing Pommie Crabs - what a bonus. This is the threat that caused the RAN to change from what was to become an all ASW HMAS Melbourne (youse can see the first USN A-4B deck landing onboard May 1965 elsewhere recently) to the mixed ASW S2sE/Gs & Wessex 31A/Bs eventually with Seakings and of course a second batch of A4Gs (second hand) at the expense of two Oberon class subs (which peeed off them submariners mightily indeed).
"“In the summer of 1961, twenty TU-16KS [Badgers] were sold to Indonesia.” [And later their Kennel missiles and whatnots and any recon shadowers]
Any OzCRAB targets were always a bonus with four underwing AIM-9Bs [+ guns sadly though with only a fixed gunsight (depressible)] and perhaps a large or small centreline tank or nowt. What peeed me of mightily was scoring well with my only test as a sprog on VF-805 of the Thomson-Ferranti gyro gunsight [as used on some Tooms apparently] refused to be bought by bean counters in Canberra although recommended by all and sundry with the knowledge (AWI testing).

Having some four RN FAA AWIs transfer to the RAN in the early 1970s with their experience on Vixens, Phantoms and Buccaneers was a real bonus with all our own AWIs trained at Lossiemouth until the mid 1970s (then they were trained in house at NAS Nowra).

HMAS Melbourne being such a small carrier the A4G was the only aircraft available at the time to be able to operate from such as small deck. True. Not even the TA4G could operate from it (not enough flight deck length to lift off the nose before going over the end during a touch and go or bolter - big problem at night).

According to the recent RN FAA Taranto Night video elsewhere I know youse CRABS have trouble with TOO MUCH INFORMATION so I'll spare ye and just say that the RAN FAA copied the conops of the early to mid 1960 VSF Skyhawk squadrons aboard USN ASW carriers of that era:
http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_1.html & http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_2.html

RN FAA Taranto Fillum: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8751157
&
USN A-4B demo vid HMAS Melbourne May 1965: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post8762001

Last edited by SpazSinbad; 30th Nov 2014 at 03:10. Reason: add VSF links + Link to TARANTO fillum + spacs + A-4B vid
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 08:03
  #5430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Cheers for the ancient history lesson..

So, how are the engine 'issues' traveling? Anyone?
Hempy is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 08:14
  #5431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
Thinking of the engine problems, does anyone know if any complete aircraft are being rolled out of Fort Worth?
PhilipG is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 09:28
  #5432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
HMAS "Melbourne" - the last warship built to use the ram..............


Maybe the Chinese wanted her for "scrap" so they could study that particular aspect of modern naval warfare......................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 11:07
  #5433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Indonesia's Badgers were all grounded in 1969. Didn't leave much for the A4Gs to do. 4 first-generation AIM9s and no AI radar - please don't come at night or in bad weather.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 11:24
  #5434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Spaz - You are supporting the points being made here.

A lot of compromised or special-purpose aircraft succeeded in niche missions. The RAN A-4 and Sea Harrier FRS1 could reduce or eliminate the adversary's ability to shadow the fleet with impunity from any point outside SAM range. Likewise, the Bucc was an excellent bomber, as was the A-7 (and I have heard the F-35 compared to both).

Indeed, if the F-35 had been designed as a specialty aircraft - a follow-on to the F-117/A-6 with the ability to hit moving targets, some in-weather capability, and the situational awareness and weapons to self-defend and survive in daylight - it would have been cheaper, better and more efficient. You can even sell me the F-35A/C in those roles today, although they are horribly compromised by STOVL.

But that's not how the program was planned or sold. The idea was to replace every fighter in the Western world, providing US industry with a lucrative monopoly and establishing effective US control over every allied AF. In the process, it was claimed that the JSF would be better at everything than everything else (except F-22 in air-to-air) and cost less too.

Not only have those claims proven to be hyped, but the strategic weakness inherent in any single point solution has been exploited by potential adversaries and their armorers.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 12:05
  #5435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Rhino,

As things stand, ASRAAM will be cleared for the outboard wing pylons only. Internal carriage would mean only lock after launch. Maybe later...

Glad Rag,

Yes, the rakish angle is interesting. Although I note the photos show ASRAAM whilst the video clip looks more like AIM9X.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 12:18
  #5436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 71
Posts: 1,938
'Mach Two' that is probably why the A4Gs went on (with twice the VF-805 numbers onboard some times [4 to 8]) to expand their role and include a buddy tanker on deck sometimes - waiting for the call (not possible with only four onboard earlier).


'Heathrow Harry' this is the second time you have fun of the death of some 150 RAN & USN sailors combined - even when determined that MELBOURNE was not responsible for either collision. 'HH' be ashamed - very ashamed.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 12:42
  #5437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
156 souls lost in two collisions, no doubt there others outboard as well due to the nature of the beast..

Not a happy ship methinks.
glad rag is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 13:08
  #5438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,159
CM, thanks for the clarification.

-RP
Rhino power is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 15:07
  #5439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
HMAS Melbourne has done far, far more for the PLAN than it ever did for the RAN.

As will, it its own way, the F 35...
Mr.Noritake is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2014, 15:12
  #5440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
I'd argue that the F4... could outperform the Mig 21 and certainly enter and leave a fight at its own choosing.

There speaks a man who has never had the benefit of been trained by instructors who faced, and comprehensively beat, the F 4 in combat.
Mr.Noritake 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.