F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
The fact of the matter is that there is only one 5th Generation jet available to western countries. The advantages 5th Generation jets have over 4th (and 4.5) Generation jets are published. If you don't get on board, in ten years you will lose.
The over-runs/issues/flaws? That's the rort factor coming into play. This is Capitalism.
They will sort it all out, eventually. It'll be at a rediculous cost, but it'll get done.
The over-runs/issues/flaws? That's the rort factor coming into play. This is Capitalism.
They will sort it all out, eventually. It'll be at a rediculous cost, but it'll get done.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by Hempy
If you don't get on board, in ten years you will lose.
Originally Posted by Hempy
They will sort it all out, eventually. It'll be at a rediculous cost, but it'll get done.
-RP
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by Rhino Power
Utter rubbish...
The Difference Between 4th and 5th Gen EW | Intercepts | Defense News
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
MSOCS - A Rover-type capability is supposedly a candidate for 4A/4B, but so far that list has not been finalized, as far as I know. Not sure about IR marker. However, it has been argued in this thread (and is missing from the latest Majumdar story) that any day video, including HDTV, is not possible.
As for upgrade costs: the concern has to be that the F-35 will resemble its cousin, the F-22, which has incurred annual R&D-alone bills that are the thick end of $1 billion since it entered service for rather modest capability upgrades and a lot of obsolescence fixes.
The idea that the F-35 will be easier to upgrade than older aircraft remains unproven. On the upside, the F-35 has more modern computers and is Ada-free. On the downside, any new apertures will have to be specially designed and the aircraft is limited in space, surface real estate, and cooling.
Hempy - The DN piece is interesting. However, it's notable that when a USAF guy talks "4th" vs. "5th" he's talking "USAF 4th". That is, F-15s with the rather decrepit, way-pre-DRFM TEWS, F-16s still stuck with RWR and no active ECM other than pods, no IRST anywhere, no intraflight datalink and 1980s glass cockpits. So, yes, F-22/35 are another order of capability. But USAF-4th isn't Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen, even today.
As for upgrade costs: the concern has to be that the F-35 will resemble its cousin, the F-22, which has incurred annual R&D-alone bills that are the thick end of $1 billion since it entered service for rather modest capability upgrades and a lot of obsolescence fixes.
The idea that the F-35 will be easier to upgrade than older aircraft remains unproven. On the upside, the F-35 has more modern computers and is Ada-free. On the downside, any new apertures will have to be specially designed and the aircraft is limited in space, surface real estate, and cooling.
Hempy - The DN piece is interesting. However, it's notable that when a USAF guy talks "4th" vs. "5th" he's talking "USAF 4th". That is, F-15s with the rather decrepit, way-pre-DRFM TEWS, F-16s still stuck with RWR and no active ECM other than pods, no IRST anywhere, no intraflight datalink and 1980s glass cockpits. So, yes, F-22/35 are another order of capability. But USAF-4th isn't Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen, even today.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by Hempy
Care to justify that statement or is it just your 'opinion'?
It's my opinion based on what information is freely available, and whilst I admit that is somewhat limiting, to suggest that unless you're operating the F-35 10 years from now, means your air force is effectively useless (there's a nice oxymoron for you!), I still maintain it's utter rubbish!
I think LO sums it up quite neatly in the last sentence of post #5531...
-RP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
LO, the upgrades are indeed coming and the list is very mature. I'm not sure where the issue has arisen on integrating a more modern EOTS with CCD. Power and cooling. Yep, agree, always a problem. Solutions inbound, both hardware and software. I know that sounds like it's "no problem" but it's not how I mean it - all of these things are head scratches for LM and the subbies to work through, not around.
I don't agree with the suggestion that F-22 and F-35 upgrade costs will be apples-apples; that remains undisclosed. That said, for F-22 the US(AF), as sole user, bore the pain of the upgrade cycle. The collegiate nature of the JSF Program spreads that cost proportionately. Those buying a much lower total number of jets than the USA will get integrated, voted-for, capability upgrades that simply could not be achieved elsewhere with their contribution. Now add in the notion of some extremely attractive tech being brought to the table from many nations and suddenly the through-life development of F-35 starts to shape.
Rhino - though everyone is entitled to an opinion without justification, an opinion without reasoning or evidence could be nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. I think Hempy was after some reasoning.
I don't agree with the suggestion that F-22 and F-35 upgrade costs will be apples-apples; that remains undisclosed. That said, for F-22 the US(AF), as sole user, bore the pain of the upgrade cycle. The collegiate nature of the JSF Program spreads that cost proportionately. Those buying a much lower total number of jets than the USA will get integrated, voted-for, capability upgrades that simply could not be achieved elsewhere with their contribution. Now add in the notion of some extremely attractive tech being brought to the table from many nations and suddenly the through-life development of F-35 starts to shape.
Rhino - though everyone is entitled to an opinion without justification, an opinion without reasoning or evidence could be nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. I think Hempy was after some reasoning.
Last edited by MSOCS; 27th Dec 2014 at 15:49.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,153
Originally Posted by MSOCS
though everyone is entitled to an opinion without justification, an opinion without reasoning or evidence could be nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. I think Hempy was after some reasoning.
-RP
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Chengdu, China
Posts: 1
JSF = 废话 (a.k.a. absurdity, balderdash, bullshit)
A most interesting thread.
Looking back over the series of posts it seems while some (like LO) have known all along, most (with some notable exceptions) have now realised the F-35 JSF program is not all it has been cracked up to be.
In fact, one could be forgiven for concluding it epitomises all that is wrong in the West.
Yet again, another fine example of what happens with the absence of integrity; failure to apply logic, reason and common sense; and, the difference between "believing" and "knowing".
Looking back over the series of posts it seems while some (like LO) have known all along, most (with some notable exceptions) have now realised the F-35 JSF program is not all it has been cracked up to be.
In fact, one could be forgiven for concluding it epitomises all that is wrong in the West.
Yet again, another fine example of what happens with the absence of integrity; failure to apply logic, reason and common sense; and, the difference between "believing" and "knowing".
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Fiction
The F-35’s ambitious capability suite – precision attack, air-to-air combat, and information/surveillance/reconnaissance – will result in a compromised platform that will never be any good.
FACT
Starting with the Six-Day War of 1967, for more than 40 years, advanced Western air forces have demonstrated a level of superiority perhaps unequalled by any form of combat power in the history of warfare. In the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Falklands War (1982), Operation Desert Storm (Iraq 1991), Operation Deliberate Force (Former Republic of Yugoslavia 1995), Operation Allied Force (FRY 1999), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan 2001), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003), advanced air forces have utterly dominated their opponents.
Those operations were primarily planned and fought by the USAF, the Israeli Air Force, and the RAF, arguably the three best air forces in the world. It is noteworthy that each of these air forces is likely to become a major user of the F-35, using it to replace many of the platforms that have underwritten their extraordinary war fighting successes of the past four decades. It is also significant that Israel – not an original partner in the JSF project – has now indicated its intention to join, based on data emerging from the aircraft’s test and development program. Other air forces either involved in the program or expressing a strong interest include: Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea and Japan.
If the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare believe that, on the best available evidence, the F-35 is likely to provide the best solution for their future combat needs, then their judgment warrants respect.
Fiction
The F-35 will be outclassed by other fighters in air-to-air combat.
FACT
There are two air-to-air domains to consider here: Beyond Visual Range, and Within Visual Range.
Authoritative American simulations have indicated that BVR engagements will dominate future air-to-air combat (as indeed they have since 1991). The estimate is that 93% of all engagements will occur at BVR and transitional distances, that is, at ranges greater than about 14 kilometres; while only 7% will occur WVR, that is, inside 14 kilometres.
Based on the best information publicly available, the only aircraft superior to the F-35 in the Beyond Visual Range domain will be the F-22. In other words, the F-35 will be better than every fighter – Russian, European, Asian, and American - except the F-22. And since it is improbable in the extreme that Australian F-35s would ever have to challenge American F-22s in combat, any thought of competition between the two is of academic interest only.
The key determinants of BVR dominance as reflected in the F-35 and F-22 are as follows:
• Both are described by the US Services as having ‘all aspect Very Low Observability’. VLO has to be built in from the ground up and cannot be added to fourth-generation aircraft.
• Both have enhanced situational awareness compared to fourth-generation aircraft, with the F-35 being the more advanced because of its extensive array of electro-optical sensors and data fusion capabilities.
• Both have advanced networking capabilities, including inter-flight data links that permit the transfer of high fidelity information between aircraft in a formation, allowing them to operate as a fully-integrated team.
• Both use the same air-to-air missiles. The F-22 will carry more AIM-9s than the F-35, but the F-35’s will be a later (i.e., better) version.
Within Visual Range, the F-35 will enjoy significant advantages through its exceptional situational awareness systems and advanced radar (both of which will be better than the F-22’s), and its advanced missiles and high off-bore sight aiming system (which allows a pilot to fire his missiles without having to manoeuvre to advantage).
Special mention should be made of the F-35’s distributed aperture system, which uses multiple infrared sensors to generate a full spherical image and allows the pilot to ‘look’ through the airframe via a helmet mounted display. While the sensor’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, may be overstating the case by claiming that it will make manoeuvrability ‘irrelevant’, the technology is a potential game changer. When the F-35 enters service it will be the only fighter in the world with such a system.
Simulations indicate that the F-35 will have a kill/loss ratio of around 8:1 against every competitor other than the F-22. By any standards that is a historically high figure. Furthermore, given the F- 35’s superior BVR capabilities, pilots almost invariably should have the option of breaking off a pending engagement should they assess that the odds are against them.
Conclusions about the F-35 as an air superiority system based on assessments of platform manoeuvrability, acceleration and maximum speeds, are ill-founded. Instead of focusing on such secondary issues, political and defence decision-makers would be better off contemplating why the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare are planning to make the F-35 the centrepiece of their operations for the first half of the 21st century.
The F-35’s ambitious capability suite – precision attack, air-to-air combat, and information/surveillance/reconnaissance – will result in a compromised platform that will never be any good.
FACT
Starting with the Six-Day War of 1967, for more than 40 years, advanced Western air forces have demonstrated a level of superiority perhaps unequalled by any form of combat power in the history of warfare. In the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Falklands War (1982), Operation Desert Storm (Iraq 1991), Operation Deliberate Force (Former Republic of Yugoslavia 1995), Operation Allied Force (FRY 1999), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan 2001), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003), advanced air forces have utterly dominated their opponents.
Those operations were primarily planned and fought by the USAF, the Israeli Air Force, and the RAF, arguably the three best air forces in the world. It is noteworthy that each of these air forces is likely to become a major user of the F-35, using it to replace many of the platforms that have underwritten their extraordinary war fighting successes of the past four decades. It is also significant that Israel – not an original partner in the JSF project – has now indicated its intention to join, based on data emerging from the aircraft’s test and development program. Other air forces either involved in the program or expressing a strong interest include: Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea and Japan.
If the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare believe that, on the best available evidence, the F-35 is likely to provide the best solution for their future combat needs, then their judgment warrants respect.
Fiction
The F-35 will be outclassed by other fighters in air-to-air combat.
FACT
There are two air-to-air domains to consider here: Beyond Visual Range, and Within Visual Range.
Authoritative American simulations have indicated that BVR engagements will dominate future air-to-air combat (as indeed they have since 1991). The estimate is that 93% of all engagements will occur at BVR and transitional distances, that is, at ranges greater than about 14 kilometres; while only 7% will occur WVR, that is, inside 14 kilometres.
Based on the best information publicly available, the only aircraft superior to the F-35 in the Beyond Visual Range domain will be the F-22. In other words, the F-35 will be better than every fighter – Russian, European, Asian, and American - except the F-22. And since it is improbable in the extreme that Australian F-35s would ever have to challenge American F-22s in combat, any thought of competition between the two is of academic interest only.
The key determinants of BVR dominance as reflected in the F-35 and F-22 are as follows:
• Both are described by the US Services as having ‘all aspect Very Low Observability’. VLO has to be built in from the ground up and cannot be added to fourth-generation aircraft.
• Both have enhanced situational awareness compared to fourth-generation aircraft, with the F-35 being the more advanced because of its extensive array of electro-optical sensors and data fusion capabilities.
• Both have advanced networking capabilities, including inter-flight data links that permit the transfer of high fidelity information between aircraft in a formation, allowing them to operate as a fully-integrated team.
• Both use the same air-to-air missiles. The F-22 will carry more AIM-9s than the F-35, but the F-35’s will be a later (i.e., better) version.
Within Visual Range, the F-35 will enjoy significant advantages through its exceptional situational awareness systems and advanced radar (both of which will be better than the F-22’s), and its advanced missiles and high off-bore sight aiming system (which allows a pilot to fire his missiles without having to manoeuvre to advantage).
Special mention should be made of the F-35’s distributed aperture system, which uses multiple infrared sensors to generate a full spherical image and allows the pilot to ‘look’ through the airframe via a helmet mounted display. While the sensor’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, may be overstating the case by claiming that it will make manoeuvrability ‘irrelevant’, the technology is a potential game changer. When the F-35 enters service it will be the only fighter in the world with such a system.
Simulations indicate that the F-35 will have a kill/loss ratio of around 8:1 against every competitor other than the F-22. By any standards that is a historically high figure. Furthermore, given the F- 35’s superior BVR capabilities, pilots almost invariably should have the option of breaking off a pending engagement should they assess that the odds are against them.
Conclusions about the F-35 as an air superiority system based on assessments of platform manoeuvrability, acceleration and maximum speeds, are ill-founded. Instead of focusing on such secondary issues, political and defence decision-makers would be better off contemplating why the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare are planning to make the F-35 the centrepiece of their operations for the first half of the 21st century.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,885
Isn't the 'F'-35 supposed to be the RAF's bomb truck (as well as the RN's 'MRCA')?
Anyhoo, much criticism of the '35 stems from the compromises and delays caused by the 'B - and their knock-on effect on the 'A and 'C.
Anyhoo, much criticism of the '35 stems from the compromises and delays caused by the 'B - and their knock-on effect on the 'A and 'C.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
How realistic is the 8:1
In a large air force, aka USAF, that may be able to afford a large number of F35s, I could possibly see an 8:1 ratio with some of the F35s slick and others carrying external stores.
I am slightly at a loss as to how a pair of F35s doing an intercept against say 16 4th or higher generation fighters will achieve a ratio of 8:1, AFAIK all the F35s can only carry 2 AA missiles internally, so the initial fight BVR is won by the slick F35s then only if they are A's will they have a gun for self protection.
If the pair of F35s in the intercept are carrying external stores then surely they will be visible to the attacking fighters, so will be at risk of BVR attack.
Or have I missed a trick?
I am slightly at a loss as to how a pair of F35s doing an intercept against say 16 4th or higher generation fighters will achieve a ratio of 8:1, AFAIK all the F35s can only carry 2 AA missiles internally, so the initial fight BVR is won by the slick F35s then only if they are A's will they have a gun for self protection.
If the pair of F35s in the intercept are carrying external stores then surely they will be visible to the attacking fighters, so will be at risk of BVR attack.
Or have I missed a trick?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,885
Instead of focusing on such secondary issues, political and defence decision-makers would be better off contemplating why the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare are planning to make the F-35 the centrepiece of their operations for the first half of the 21st century.
Can't see G6 entering service before 2030 either, given the length of time the '22 & '35 took from 'prototype' (YF-22/X-35) flight to in service, both around 14 years.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 28th Dec 2014 at 12:22.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
Now in support of Hempy's article regarding the superiority of the F-35 in the three services role, I offer this:
However, George failed to mention that all three services will have F-35s designed in one way or another to accommodate this feature whether it is present or not:
Therefore, to conclude that the USAF or USN versions will be as capable as LM projects is highly questionable, IMHO. The US Marine version won the contest as to having the least compromised aircraft. What makes me wonder about the F-35 and the Marines is this article written by a former Marine:
With EF21, Marines Struggle to Remain Relevant
So, how close does the F-35 come to the F-22 capability? Here is the F-22 capability as a starting point:
George Standridge, VP of Business Development of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air superiority.
Therefore, to conclude that the USAF or USN versions will be as capable as LM projects is highly questionable, IMHO. The US Marine version won the contest as to having the least compromised aircraft. What makes me wonder about the F-35 and the Marines is this article written by a former Marine:
With EF21, Marines Struggle to Remain Relevant
So, how close does the F-35 come to the F-22 capability? Here is the F-22 capability as a starting point:
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Welsh Wales
Posts: 227
I am a civilian, I also have a strong interest in defence matters and lurk in here so I have some idea of what is really going on, as opposed to the junk fed to me by journo's or politicians. I don't post much as I can't contribute to the debates as I often lack sufficient knowledge to do so.
So I hope no one will jump all over me but speaking as someone who is going to be paying for the F35B in UK service and will be relying on it to protect the nation (and my tender skin) I just have to say I am completely unimpressed by this overpriced abortion. Reading Hempy's post gives me an itchy feeling between my shoulder blades and an overwhelming urge to say bullshit. If the F35 is so capable, why is the USN so keen to increase their F18G fleet, Australia buying 12 Growlers of their own and the USMC snatching every ex-USN EA6B as they become available to support the F35 in service.
No one has ever built a AAM which is 100% guaranteed to hit, so I am pretty sure AMRAAM isn't it nor ASRAAM or AIM9X. It is quite possible that even if a pair of fully loaded F35's came up against 16 PAK FA they are going to use all that wonderful data fusion to get a superb 3D view of being out turned and shredded.
I will be very happy to be wrong on this.
So I hope no one will jump all over me but speaking as someone who is going to be paying for the F35B in UK service and will be relying on it to protect the nation (and my tender skin) I just have to say I am completely unimpressed by this overpriced abortion. Reading Hempy's post gives me an itchy feeling between my shoulder blades and an overwhelming urge to say bullshit. If the F35 is so capable, why is the USN so keen to increase their F18G fleet, Australia buying 12 Growlers of their own and the USMC snatching every ex-USN EA6B as they become available to support the F35 in service.
No one has ever built a AAM which is 100% guaranteed to hit, so I am pretty sure AMRAAM isn't it nor ASRAAM or AIM9X. It is quite possible that even if a pair of fully loaded F35's came up against 16 PAK FA they are going to use all that wonderful data fusion to get a superb 3D view of being out turned and shredded.
I will be very happy to be wrong on this.
