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 27th Jan 2015, 14:27
  #5621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,052
ANALYSIS: Hurdles ahead as Lockheed works to meet full-rate F-35 production

ANALYSIS: Hurdles ahead as Lockheed works to meet full-rate F-35 production

From Flight Global. A long, quite detailed and interesting article, mainly about the issues Lockheed face in ramping up production from the current three per month to the seventeen per month target for full rate production in 2019.

Last edited by Lyneham Lad; 27th Jan 2015 at 14:39.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 15:31
  #5622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 91
Posts: 1,885
...would be like putting a turboprop in a P-47.
...or a 'P-51'...

Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 13:05
  #5623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: scotland
Posts: 494
I have just seen pictures of the F35 operating at Red Flag this month, would be interested to know how it is fairing.
KPax is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:18
  #5624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
Moving on…..

The US DoD must have recently reviewed past history (F-111) that they somehow didn't review soon enough and recently decided separately designed fighters for the Navy and the Air Force does make sense, e.g., experiences with the F-14, F-18 and F-15, F-16.

Pentagon To Boost F-35 Orders, Develop New Fighters LMT BA - Investors.com
Turbine D is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:28
  #5625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: northofwhereiusedtobe
Posts: 1,224
The US DoD must have recently reviewed past history (F-111) that they somehow didn't review soon enough and recently decided separately designed fighters for the Navy and the Air Force does make sense
No 5hit...who would have thought it
longer ron is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 18:31
  #5626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Yep. Speaking of new shiny objects...

U.S. military budget to start funding post-F-35 'X-plane' : Business

Consider that the program of record still has the USAF buying 80 F-35As in 2037.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 19:59
  #5627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,470
The Defense Department will also seek $1.2 billion for the development of a new long-range bomber — another contract that's expected to be hotly contested —
Maybe that one will be unmanned. I do not believe that another bomber ever needs to be built. There are a variety of ways to deliver munitions. Manned bomber strikes me as an anachronism ... 'fighting the last war' mentality.
as well as $821 million procurement of MQ-9 Reaper drones, according to Politico.
One of the few procurement decisions that makes sense to me.

At some point, will the US DoD look at what they need out of aircraft and airborne platforms and question the paradigm that a person needs to be in it?
The unmanned carrier aircraft is a step in that direction as part of the force mix. Maybe I am wrong, and the key is the mix : some manned, some unmanned. (That is what the USN's LAMPS community is evolving into).

From the linked article, what appears to be happening is that an engine is what the follow on strike/fighter aircraft is to be built around.

Not sure if that's what's going on, but that's how it reads to me.

Confusing, to be sure.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 22:40
  #5628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 809
Maybe I am wrong, and the key is the mix : some manned, some unmanned. (That is what the USN's LAMPS community is evolving into).
That would be the logical safe approach. The possibility of your enemy being able to exploit an unknown weakness and bring your whole force down in one foul swoop would be to high.
rh200 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 22:51
  #5629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 80
Posts: 1,153
From the linked article, what appears to be happening is that an engine is what the follow on strike/fighter aircraft is to be built around.
Design and development has been going on for sometime on a new class of jet engines for the sixth generation of fighter aircraft. The article below describes the emerging engine technology as best as any in the public domain.

Next Generation Engine Work Points to Future U.S. Fighter Designs - USNI News
Turbine D is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 00:52
  #5630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by KPax
I have just seen pictures of the F35 operating at Red Flag this month, would be interested to know how it is fairing.

No, you've seen pictures of OT and a WA tailed F-35s operating at Nellis alongside Red Flag, but these aircraft are not fragged to take part in the exercise.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 01:30
  #5631 (permalink)  
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
I do not believe that another bomber ever needs to be built.

Maybe not, but in GW1, Afghanistan 2001 , Kosovo, and GW11, resistance on the ground was broken by B-52 cluster bombing, not precision weapons.

Those B-52s will not last forever, and a platform capable of delivering high tonnages of devastating hell on ground enemy formations will always be a needed and key arrow in the quiver.

Whether the B-52 replacement will be manned or not is a good argument. I have no problem with totally automated, robotic warfare, so long as we remain at the leading edge of technology. Sadly, I think our advantage there has been neglected in favor of income equality.
BenThere is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 01:47
  #5632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Yep. Speaking of new shiny objects...

U.S. military budget to start funding post-F-35 'X-plane' : Business

Consider that the program of record still has the USAF buying 80 F-35As in 2037.
Two things that are completely unrelated - but then you knew that.

These new fighters are to replace the F-15C, F-22, F-15E, and F/A-18E/Fs - aircraft the F-35 was never intended to replace - but you knew that also.

So why do you keep trying to claim that starting the process of replacing aircraft the F-35 was never intended to replace is somehow proof that the F-35 is a failure?

Obsessed much?
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 01:52
  #5633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Budgets tend to make all sorts of things related.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 10:51
  #5634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
...for example, when a certain fast jet project, back in the 80s and 90s was eating the Defence Budget, all sorts of other, "unrelated" projects found their funding evaporating. Who'd have thought there was any relationship between Eurofighter and, say, the Army's new radio? All things are connected in this field.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 10:57
  #5635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Budgets tend to make all sorts of things related.
As do Journalists.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 11:02
  #5636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil View Post
...for example, when a certain fast jet project, back in the 80s and 90s was eating the Defence Budget, all sorts of other, "unrelated" projects found their funding evaporating. Who'd have thought there was any relationship between Eurofighter and, say, the Army's new radio? All things are connected in this field.
"Trident replacement "

ker$$$ring....
glad rag is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 11:33
  #5637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Maybe more detail is needed.

If an SC6G (so-called sixth gen) fighter is to be produced in quantity for the USAF in parallel with the F-35, starting round 2030, the USAF will at that time be acquiring, each year, 80 F-35As, 8-10 LRSBs, xx SC6Gs, along with tankers and T-Xs. By the way, the replacement of the ALCM (LRSO) and Minuteman III (GBSD) will also be in full swing. I think that is called "fiscally challenging".

Also, for those who think SC6G is a replacement for F-15s: the planned replacement for the F-15 is the F-35. The USAF still nominally has a 1900-fighter goal, which nominally is covered by 1763 F-35s and 140-ish F-22s.

And if the SC6G is to follow the F-35 into production (well after 2035) it is ridiculously early in the game to be funding prototypes.

It may be worth remembering, too, that until the mid-2000s the F-35 was not expected to displace any of the 339 F-22s.

Last edited by LowObservable; 29th Jan 2015 at 14:40.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2015, 15:33
  #5638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Classified
Posts: 315
F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

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

Last edited by Radix; 18th Mar 2016 at 02:17.
Radix is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2015, 09:38
  #5639 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,259
Navy push to rename Dave as "Sea Lightning".

If it's to be flown by both services it don't see the point, except a political inter-service one. Not a a good way to start.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 31st Jan 2015, 09:59
  #5640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 50
Posts: 386
In exactly the same way that the Phantom, Buccaneer, Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet all had "Sea" prefixed to their service names - I can see the tradition.

However, using the SHar abbreviation, could the Sea Lightning become the SLig or even with a tweak the "SLug" in service.

On a personal level, I am not dead against the 'Sea' bit if they were FAA assets - but IIRC they are going to be RAF creatures, operated jointly, and will use the best of JFH learnt doctrine to deliver effect.

NB: and I am not taking the P... with the last bit, because the Harrier force in Afghanistan, and prior to that, was doing a good job.
Finnpog 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.