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 28th Dec 2014, 16:17
  #5541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
I have some idea of what is really going on, as opposed to the junk fed to me by journo's...
Why, thank you kindly sir ;-)
melmothtw is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2014, 17:38
  #5542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Ooh, Mel. That's you told. I guess he really meant the Daily Mail.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2014, 19:27
  #5543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
PG - The Block 3F and later F-35 is supposed to have four internal AMRAAMs (although I have to say I have yet to see a photo of even a fit check).

It's therefore possible to construct a scenario where four F-35s against 16 adversaries destroy eight of them without assuming silly high Pks. However, this almost has to assume that Red is unaware of anything untoward until the Amraams go active.

However, it does not take any classified information to understand that the real world will diverge from this ideal, if and when the adversaries have more warning of the attack and the ability to respond with evasion, EW and expendables.

Also, it is common sense that the always challenging issue of detecting/tracking/IDing without being detected oneself (LPI/LPD) has been made more difficult as adversaries have reduced their signature and improved (massively) their active and passive EW.

Finally, you really don't want to be in a situation when you have exhausted all your weapons without either killing all the adversaries or expending their (larger) magazines, particularly when the remaining -off adversaries are faster than you.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2014, 20:23
  #5544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 1,610
If he meant the Daily Fail Court, then that's alright then ;-)
melmothtw is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2014, 21:53
  #5545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 62
Posts: 371
Thanks for that LO, if and when 3F is released, with the ability to carry possibly 4 internal AMRAAMs surely the best the F35 could hope to achieve is 4:1, leaving a basically defenceless plane, still quite a way from 8:1.
PhilipG is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 01:44
  #5546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Welsh Wales
Posts: 227
I was talking about the sort of journalist who sees doing celebrity puff pieces as a promotion rather than an excursion to hell. I was not talking about the kind who try to get things right.
Woff1965 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 01:55
  #5547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Some intellectual dishonesty going on here.

Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?

A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.

As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.

The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 11:34
  #5548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Thanks GK121..any excuse!

Originally Posted by GreenKnight121 View Post
Some intellectual dishonesty going on here.

Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?

A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.

As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.

The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 11:58
  #5549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
GK - Correct, but it underscores the larger point. U.S. fighters since the 1980s have enjoyed both superior weapons/sensors and better performance than their adversaries. The latter translates into engagement control: against any adversary other than the Su-27, any modern Western fighter has been able to disengage at will and (as you point out) to return tomorrow to continue campaign-level attrition. (The MiG-29 has speed, agility and acceleration but lacks the fuel to extend an engagement.) Will the F-35 retain that advantage against the Su-35, J-10 or J-11?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 12:30
  #5550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 315
F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

.............

Last edited by Radix; 18th Mar 2016 at 02:15.
Radix is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 13:30
  #5551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Hempy, Thank you for this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=5hV8W4EzXRU

I'm utterly depressed by the performance of the chaps answering the questions.

The level of assumption and apparent complancy is akin to the worst fanboys.

Alongside that the lack of answers to questions and sheer lack of knowledge is painful.

The whole performance screams protecting little empires rather than seeking the best solution.

If i were a member of the Australian armed forces i'd struggle to face being lead by that crowd.
Snafu351 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 15:23
  #5552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,508
LO:
Thanks for the comments on the Aus journey to F-35.

Kill ratios and predictions by VP's of LM ... projections made that may someday be put to the test at which point one will know the real number.

F-18G. Woff, I may be wrong, but the USN discovered in the past 10-15 years that airborne EWM/EW/ECM capability is a high demand mission both during a "big fight" and during COIN and other "smaller" fights. I suspect that the original numbers authorized were less than the service asked for, and that later plus ups included three considerations:
1. Getting what was originally asked for
2. Congressional pressure to keep production up for a constituency
3. Revision of requirements in light of the EA-6B usage and demand from 2001-2014 in various ops.

That's a guess, of course, informed by modest experience (at best) in operations and acquisition/programming/politics and the interface thereof.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2014, 23:03
  #5553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Re: this link posted in #5537
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...l%2024Mar1.pdf

Go to the homepage of the Williams Foundation, and look at the scroll at the bottom of the page. Just about every contractor involved with the F-35 program is represented (presumably donors/sponsors)
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE, Konigsberg....

It's like the Australian version of Second Line of Defense, Breaking Defense, etc. In other words, paid speech.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2014, 01:50
  #5554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
LW - I believe one factor in the push for more EA-18s is the demonstration that you can use three Growlers with TTNT datalink and TDOA (time difference of arrival) to locate emitters very quickly and with targeting-grade accuracy. This makes you want to put three EAs up where otherwise you might have used two. Hence, more aircraft on ship.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2014, 02:01
  #5555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 49
Posts: 1,065
A couple more articles relevant to this discussion

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake - The Atlantic

The Tragedy of the American Military - The Atlantic
Mr C Hinecap is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2014, 19:09
  #5556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Even that most parochial of F-35 critics would tell you the "$1.5 trillion" meme is incorrect and has been proven several times to be so, right LO?


Once you see that headline, it's really not worth reading of watching any further...
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 30th Dec 2014, 22:11
  #5557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
I don't use the trillion-dollar numbers myself - it's the astronomical CPFH that forms part of it that is scary - but, for the record, the first person to call JSF a trillion-dollar program was Micky Blackwell of LockMart in 1996.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2014, 07:02
  #5558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Perhaps not, but nor do you correct others when they use it. Instead you seem happy to let them go through to the keeper because it conveniently suits your biased arguments.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2014, 09:35
  #5559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
so tell us FA18 how much WILL it cost???

No-one seems to know - which is half the probelm
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2014, 09:41
  #5560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
HH,
Just be quite and don't challenge or ask any awkward questions or point out the utter failure of the project to date.
That's not allowed.
As long as it is in service one day it doesn't matter how much it cost or how long it took to be operationally useful, anybody who understands the truth knows that.
If you don't know that then you are not part of the need to know so how dare you have the bare faced cheek to point out little unimportant things like the soaring (out of control?) costs for a completely non-operational platform. (Still non-operational several years after it's intended in service date. Of course the opposition will have been doing nothing in that time, they are all good sports.)
Snafu351 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.