F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).
If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
Thank you, Mel. Exactly what I've been trying to say.
If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
Thank you, Mel. Exactly what I've been trying to say.
2. If the F-35 cannot perform the mission, then the RAF/RN folks who set down the specifications need to sacked. Perhaps shot.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.
As the F35 is not an air superiority fighter, with the supposed advent of Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters, I am assuming that you feel it was the wrong decision to stop production of the F22 and as such the line should be put back to work after suitable upgrades have been made to the central computer systems, so that antiques are not being installed in the new build aircraft, whilst we wait for 6th Generation air defence fighters.
I assume as well that you would suggest to South Korea, Israel, Japan and Australia that they cancel their orders for F35s and put in orders for F22s. Together with of course Canada and Norway.
As regards the UK Ken I am assuming that taking your logic forward you would suggest that the decision to put a ski jump on the QEC Class Carriers was wrong and that they should be re-equipped to either take Super Hornets or Rafales, as the F35B is not fit for purpose.
Ken what is the quantum of F35s that you feel is appropriate for the USAF to purchase, still some 1,700+?
A number of jobs in Fort Worth seem to be at risk if you are correct.
Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.
As the F35 is not an air superiority fighter, with the supposed advent of Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters, I am assuming that you feel it was the wrong decision to stop production of the F22 and as such the line should be put back to work after suitable upgrades have been made to the central computer systems, so that antiques are not being installed in the new build aircraft, whilst we wait for 6th Generation air defence fighters.
I assume as well that you would suggest to South Korea, Israel, Japan and Australia that they cancel their orders for F35s and put in orders for F22s. Together with of course Canada and Norway.
As regards the UK Ken I am assuming that taking your logic forward you would suggest that the decision to put a ski jump on the QEC Class Carriers was wrong and that they should be re-equipped to either take Super Hornets or Rafales, as the F35B is not fit for purpose.
Ken what is the quantum of F35s that you feel is appropriate for the USAF to purchase, still some 1,700+?
A number of jobs in Fort Worth seem to be at risk if you are correct.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from Janes.com
COMMENT As with most issues related to the F-35, this latest controversy has split observers down the middle, with the aircraft's advocates and detractors taking diametrically opposed views - and with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.
The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.
For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.
However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.
Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.
With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20.
This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.
COMMENT As with most issues related to the F-35, this latest controversy has split observers down the middle, with the aircraft's advocates and detractors taking diametrically opposed views - and with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.
The War is Boring article appears to have accurately recounted the test pilot's experiences and comments (as the JPO seems to be only disputing the interpretation of the pilot's findings not their authenticity) when it says the F-35 performed poorly in close-in dogfighting.
For its part, the JPO was quite correct when it stated the F-35 was never designed for dogfighting (some have postulated the aircraft would have been better designated the A-35 rather than the F-35, on account of its weighting towards the attack role), and that aircraft AF-2 used for the test was not fitted with many of the advanced systems that would likely have enabled it to defeat its adversary when fighting on its own medium- to long-range terms.
However, while the JPO can point to such discrepancies between the test pilot's comments (as they appeared in the article) and the F-35's mission set, it should be noted that many nations that cannot afford multiple aircraft types are procuring the F-35 as a multirole 'jack of all trades' to perform the full spectrum of missions.
Though advanced sensor and missile technology renders the classic dogfight less likely than at any point during the history of military aviation, rules of engagement and other considerations can sometimes require aircraft to be within visual range before engaging each other. The point the War is Boring article was trying to make, and the point the JPO has failed to refute in its rebuttal, is that aircraft do not always get to fight on their terms, and that it is no good saying that just because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight it will never have to do so.
With the F-35 set to become the dominant platform in Western (and allied) use over the coming decades (in many cases procured specifically as an F-16 replacement), its apparent lack of a close-in aerial combat capability will raise concern, especially considering the range of new 'fifth-generation' fighters coming out of Russia and China, such as the PAK-FA and J-20.
This concern will persist until the F-35 is able to prove otherwise, regardless of whether the aircraft was designed to dogfight or not.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh.
"Effective in air-to-air combat" involves a LOT more than turning and burning. Once again, the total package must be compared, not just raw turn performance.
And the blog post you guys are hanging your hats on provided how many metrics that show the F-35's metrics are not "comparable or better" than those other (4th gen) aircraft's metrics? Zero you say? And you think that's definitive or even just meaningful? REALLY?
Citing U.S. Air Force analyses, (Davis) said the F-35 is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market, including Sukhois.
"The F-35 is comparable or better in every one of those metrics, sometimes by a significant margin, in both air-to-air, and when we hog-up those fourth-generation fighters, for the air-to-ground mission," says Billy Flynn, a Lockheed test pilot who is responsible for flight envelope expansion activities for all three variants.
And the blog post you guys are hanging your hats on provided how many metrics that show the F-35's metrics are not "comparable or better" than those other (4th gen) aircraft's metrics? Zero you say? And you think that's definitive or even just meaningful? REALLY?
Well then, I'm guessing the you're guessing wrong. Do you really think the Royal Navy (and the other F-35 buyers) think they're buying F-22 dog fight performance? REALLY?!!
You are aware that the choice is not F-35 or F-22, right?
You're still missing it aren't you? F-35 is predominantly a tactical bomber. But one that can escort itself to defend itself against fighters. It is not nor was it ever meant to be an air superiority fighter.
2. If the F-35 cannot perform the mission, then the RAF/RN folks who set down the specifications need to sacked. Perhaps shot.
Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.
Sigh.
Last edited by melmothtw; 3rd Jul 2015 at 15:53.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at how our air forces have to do their present day job in the baltic , I'm more than happy that we still have a real air dominance fighter iso the A7 of the 21st century.
Belgische F-16's merken spanning op tussen Rusland en Westen: 'Intercepties zijn agressiever' - Wereld - Knack.be
Sounds surprisingly a lot like a potential WVR (ACM capabilities potentially very much required) engagement to me.
Belgische F-16's merken spanning op tussen Rusland en Westen: 'Intercepties zijn agressiever' - Wereld - Knack.be
Originally Posted by translated from Dutch article
De Belgische F-16's die vanuit Polen mee het noordelijke Navo-luchtruim bewaken, hebben de voorbije weken duidelijk de verhoogde spanningen tussen Rusland en het Westen gemerkt. Het aantal Russische vliegtuigen dat onaangekondigd opduikt boven de Baltische Zee steeg gevoelig, zo kreeg defensieminister Steven Vandeput (N-VA) ter plaatse te horen.
Belgian F-16's ,operating out of Poland to safeguard the Northern NATO-airspace, reported a markable increase in tensions created by the number of Russian airplanes popping up unexpectedly over the Baltic Sea, quoting defence minister Vandeput
Belgian F-16's ,operating out of Poland to safeguard the Northern NATO-airspace, reported a markable increase in tensions created by the number of Russian airplanes popping up unexpectedly over the Baltic Sea, quoting defence minister Vandeput
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
It's a stealth bomber with self-escort....
Interestingly, that's essentially what I've been saying all along.
It's a stealth bomber with self-escort....
Interestingly, that's essentially what I've been saying all along.
Besides,Dude, this is a stealth bomber.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken
Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.
Would you now with the latest stance that you are taking on what the F35 is be advising Canada to replace it's Hornets with F35s as having an attack bomber as your sole air defence fighter is not a very sensible idea? Ditto Norway of course.
As the F35 is not an air superiority fighter, with the supposed advent of Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters, I am assuming that you feel it was the wrong decision to stop production of the F22
What is the actual performance of the "Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters", and how many will they actually build? 5th gen fighters are pricey. 5th gen air superiority fighters even more so. If the US can't afford them in large numbers, can Russia and China? If the Russian and Chinese 5th gen fighters actually deliver on promised performance AND they can be purchased in large numbers, then by all means, lets build more F-22s. But making such a decision based on a single blog post is absurd.
I assume as well that you would suggest to South Korea, Israel, Japan and Australia that they cancel their orders for F35s and put in orders for F22s. Together with of course Canada and Norway.
As regards the UK Ken I am assuming that taking your logic forward you would suggest that the decision to put a ski jump on the QEC Class Carriers was wrong and that they should be re-equipped to either take Super Hornets or Rafales, as the F35B is not fit for purpose.
Ken what is the quantum of F35s that you feel is appropriate for the USAF to purchase, still some 1,700+?
A number of jobs in Fort Worth seem to be at risk if you are correct.
One final comment: I've said before that folks are jumping to all sorts of absurd conclusions concerning the "War is Boring" blog post. If suggesting that multiple nations cancel F-35 orders, reopening the F-22 line, refitting RN carriers, RN cancelling F-35B orders in favor of Super Hornets and/or Rafales based on that blog post is not absurd, then nothing is.
Mel,
A brave effort and well reasoned. I doubt you'll reap much fruit.
Do remember when you discuss the aircraft being designed to meet the spec that the design spec in this case has had to be redefined more than once.
I honestly now think the RN has been sold a pup. And for those that couldn't be arsed to follow this and many other discussions and articles on the subject, the opinions being expressed here are not based on a single pilot's jottings. His words are simply confirming what was already expected.
If some of you would like to take a little time out to read, let's say, posts here from about two years ago, you will see that the claims of the day were precisely what many here are now denying.
So, enough "I told you so." Enough "it was never meant to do that." How about what it can do? Tactical Bomb Truck seems to be the current thinking. Anyone care to think about how HMS Queen Elizabeth might be defended? Apologies to the Americans for that question; I understand you couldn't give a ****. Just as long as the UK remains a loyal partner and buys it.
A brave effort and well reasoned. I doubt you'll reap much fruit.
Do remember when you discuss the aircraft being designed to meet the spec that the design spec in this case has had to be redefined more than once.
I honestly now think the RN has been sold a pup. And for those that couldn't be arsed to follow this and many other discussions and articles on the subject, the opinions being expressed here are not based on a single pilot's jottings. His words are simply confirming what was already expected.
If some of you would like to take a little time out to read, let's say, posts here from about two years ago, you will see that the claims of the day were precisely what many here are now denying.
So, enough "I told you so." Enough "it was never meant to do that." How about what it can do? Tactical Bomb Truck seems to be the current thinking. Anyone care to think about how HMS Queen Elizabeth might be defended? Apologies to the Americans for that question; I understand you couldn't give a ****. Just as long as the UK remains a loyal partner and buys it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get it Ken, but I wonder if you do. You said it yourself - predominantly. While no one is saying that it is expected to have Raptor-esque air combat capabilities, LM itself said that it should be able (and would be, going by past statements) to dogfight to defend itself. According to the test pilot, it can't.
You're welcome to leap to such conclusions. Me, not so much.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds surprisingly a lot like a potential WVR (ACM capabilities potentially very much required) engagement to me.
Last edited by KenV; 3rd Jul 2015 at 17:05.
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Au contraire, for the UK the F-35 was intended to be a carrier-borne aircraft capable of air defence of naval and ground forces and self-escorting ground attack (as set out in Staff Target 6464).
If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
If it is unable to perform this mission, then it is defective.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would posit that your suggestion that all of the misgivings about the F-35 raised in this thread are the result of a single blog post is absurd.
The F-35s performance metrics have been known for years. Loooonggg before this blog post. Yes, there is controversy surrounding the performance specifications the aircraft was designed to. That controversy has been brewing for years. But no, this blog post provides no new insight into those specifications, beyond a fresh "seat of the pants" observation about turn performance in a close in dog fight scenario. And yes, these latest conclusions bantered about here based on that blog post are absurd. Further, I posit that any suggestion that this blog post provides some kind of definitive "I told you so" data to support the many "warnings" expressed here over the years is absurd.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it is a very naive stance to take, but I've always thought that an aircraft which looks good, is good. To me, the F35 looks like an overweight pig; conversely, the F22, F16, F15, F18.........
But in my defense I got worn down by the personal attacks. I will endeavor to keep a more proper British stiff upper lip.
Ken
You stated: The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.
I gave you two sourced quotes in which it was advertised as exactly that.
You then defended those statements (Davis and Flynn) - and not factually, but by attacking anyone who attaches any significance to the report leaked on Monday.
So you're defending people who contradicted your first statement. Do you wonder that people are getting a bit
ed off, or is that your intention? Do you have any consistent viewpoint, or are you just trying to muddy a discussion that's not going your way?
You stated: The F-35 is not nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.
I gave you two sourced quotes in which it was advertised as exactly that.
You then defended those statements (Davis and Flynn) - and not factually, but by attacking anyone who attaches any significance to the report leaked on Monday.
So you're defending people who contradicted your first statement. Do you wonder that people are getting a bit
ed off, or is that your intention? Do you have any consistent viewpoint, or are you just trying to muddy a discussion that's not going your way?