F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[KenV]

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?

There's two parts to your question:

1. Defended from what/who? Against the vast majority if nations, no problem. Against a 1st or big 2nd world nation (like India? Brazil?) with a modern air arm and/or modern sea denial weapons (like anti ship missiles and submarines), no chance of survival. In the latter case she would need to operate cooperatively within a proper carrier battle group. Do you really foresee an RN carrier engaging a significant military power all by herself? Really?

2. If not F-35B what would you propose as an alternative? F-35C? Super Harrier? Rafale M? Super Hornet? Su-33? MiG-29K? What data do you have that indicates any of these would be significantly better at defending her. And equally importantly, capable of defending her while also providing the same offensive capability?

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.

Gratuitous cheap shots from these folks seem somehow appropriate and expected. Wonder why that is. (Oh wait, that was a joke! Yeah, that's the ticket.)

[KenV]

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.

Your interpretation. I interpreted it quite differently and said so. That you missed that appears willful. Is that because you are pissed off? And separately, I posit that no uniformed decision maker (I will not include the politicians nor the few handwringers in this thread) in USAF, USN, RN, RAF, or the air arm of any nation bought the F-35 thinking it was an air superiority fighter. None. You handwringers are welcome to fantasize otherwise.

And on the subject of air superiority fighters, are Mirages air superiority fighters with high levels of close-in air combat capability? Really? And yet France and many other nations have depended on them to defend their nation. For decades. Those were of course all very bad decisions.

[Courtney Mil]

Ken,

I'm kind of sorry to say this because I do think you have something to contribute, although you hide it well sometimes and seem more intent on arguing than discussing - to use your phrase "SIGH!"

In a few months here on PPRuNe you have picked the same (or similar) fights with folk on various threads and have put yourself about as an expert on everything from "airliners" to mil transport, helicopters, carrier ops and even Typhoon. Looking through your earlier posts, I wonder if your real interest isn't "American stuff is great, everyone else's is rubbish." You showed your hand repeatedly in the Boeing vs Airbus debates.

I only wonder this because you change your arguments so quickly and ignore the points others raise with such ease if you don't want to address them, that I really wonder if you are here to DISCUSS the F-35 or simply to rubbish anyone that raises doubts about another American super cab.

If you truly are an expert in all those fields, then I raise my glass to you now.

Yes, I kind of know what to expect.

[KenV]

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.........

Have you seen Boeing's version of the JSF? Now THAT is ugly!

[glad rag]

Err Boeing don't have a version of the JSF, Dude.

I am starting to lean towards the notion that this thread needs a declaration of interests...

[KenV]

Ken,

I'm kind of sorry to say this because I do think you have something to contribute, although you hide it well sometimes and seem more intent on arguing than discussing - to use your phrase "SIGH!"

Do you not find it strange that most people have no problem understanding what I write and don't come away with the conclusion that I am trolling, changing position, ignoring points, and/or have an inherent bias toward US products and against European products? While the same certain few come away with that impression?

I posit that the few with the mistaken impression are engaging in projection. In other words, they are biased and project their bias on me. My previous discussion with Beagle on the "Frankentanker" epithet was an excellent example of such.

As to "picking fights", I don't consider replying to posts that are directed at me, by name (such as this one), and often include personal remarks (such as this post), as "picking fights". I posit that your "picking fights" charge is another form of projection.

"rubbish anyone"? I have endeavored mightily to address specific statements posted in this thread and have even quoted the specific statement before addressing it. That's not rubbishing anyone, but replying to/rebutting the statement. On the other hand, the same folks who misinterpret and/or totally ignore/miss what I state have made several personal remarks directed at me by name, just like this post I am replying to now. Once again, projection.

And finally, I never stated, suggested, nor remotely implied that I was an "expert" in any field, much less "all those fields" as you claimed. Yet more projection?

[KenV]

duplicate post deleted.

[KenV]

Err Boeing don't have a version of the JSF, Dude.

Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.

Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.

If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below:

Boeing X-32 JSF Photo Gallery Image df-sd-03-15738
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32

I am starting to lean towards the notion that this tread needs a declaration of interests...

Perhaps you should begin by declaring YOUR interests which prompted you to make the above utterly false statement. And one so easily shown to be false.

[NITRO104]

Originally Posted by TEEEJ

Joint Program Office Response to “War is Boring” Blog
The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft.

Hm, if memory serves TRO wasn't noted by the pilot performing the test which suggests it has up to date control laws.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

...which means the plane is lighter than the production version, so the results for the line aircraft are probably even worse.

[KenV]

...which means the plane is lighter than the production version, so the results for the line aircraft are probably even worse.

Maybe. Maybe not. Test assets are loaded with all sorts of extra wiring, strain gauges, test instrumentation, data recorders, and telemetry equipment. And we have no idea what ballast (if any) was in the weapon bays to mimic/model weapons, nor the fuel state of the test aircraft.

I believe we should be much more cautious about making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on those assumptions.

[NITRO104]

And we have no idea what ballast

There's no ballast replacement for stealth coating.

[glad rag]

.Ken.

Have verses Had. OK. English.


Ken, many participants have commented on your,well, preposterous and argumentative stance.

You do indeed give the impression that you are in fact obliquely angling to have this thread shut down possibly by sighting house rules.

Are you?? or are you not???

I refer you, Sir, to my previous "declaration of interests" You do seem somewhat concerned over it

Bonsoir.

[LowObservable]

And separately, I posit that no uniformed decision maker (I will not include the politicians nor the few handwringers in this thread) in USAF, USN, RN, RAF, or the air arm of any nation bought the F-35 thinking it was an air superiority fighter.

Are you mincing words here, and defining "air superiority fighter" as "F-22-like aircraft that does nothing else"? Because nobody is saying that, nobody has said that, and you are using a strawman argument.

Or are you literally trying to say that these customers did not think that it was capable of air superiority missions (OCA, DCA, QRA air defense &c)? Because that is not true - which we know because almost all customers and partners plan to use the F-35 to replace aircraft that do those missions today.

So you are wrong either way, and your sneering references to "handwringers" simply indicates your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you.

Also: Do you not find it strange that most people have no problem understanding what I write and don't come away with the conclusion that I am trolling, changing position, ignoring points, and/or have an inherent bias toward US products and against European products?

This mystifies me somewhat, as there seems to be a large absence of people responding to your posts with "Attaboy, Ken!" and "Give those Limeys heck, dude!"

And BTW, your position from the other thread (Airbus MRTT is "Frankentanker" and KC-46 is not) has been rather undermined by Australia's decision to convert two used civil A330s into KC-30s. Try modding a 767 into a KC-46.

Enough already, since unlike CM I am not really aware of anything useful you have brought to this discussion. I wave my wand, engage my ignore filter and

TROLLICULUS EFFOFFITUS!

(Kennie whinges about how "mature" this response is in 5-4-3....)

[melmothtw]

Quote:
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.
Your approach leads me to suspect that you would have judged SHAR defective and prevented it from ever entering service. Accepting its ability as a bomb truck, do you believe the F-35B's AD capability is going to be significantly better or worse than Harrier in any of its forms?

That's actually a very good point FODPlod, and one I have considered on several occasions. I'm well aware that when the Sea Harrier entered service it was considered little better than a toy, only to prove its critics massively wrong during the Falklands (I know there was the US-supplied Sidewinder issue, but many of the kills were with guns).

I do truly hope that the F-35 does the same - believe it or not, I don't want it to fail.

To answer your question, I honestly don't know if the F-35's AD capability is comparatively greater than the Sea Harrier (given the increased capability of the threat also). I have to assume that it is, but the reports I am reading (the facts of which the JPO does not dispute, only the interpretation) lead me to wonder.

Regardless of the comparative capabilities with the Sea Harrier though, I find the JPO's argument that because the F-35 is not designed to dogfight (a change from its previous position) that it will never have to, to be spurious and disingenuous.

[Finnpog]

So - in UK service what designation might it attract? I know we perhaps discussed this a couple of years ago before some of the more recent testing.

Lightning FRS1 or FA1 (a la SHAR) or
GR1 following on from Tornado or Harrier?
FGR1 from the Phantom & Euro Typhoon inspirations?

I thought about the B & I prefixes, and even the MRA (don't mention Nimrod... I did it once, but think that I got away with it)

I might in fact prefer the Strike 'S' from Buccaneer fame - however the Reaper does not have a role prefix designation AFAIK - so perhaps bets are off?

[Courtney Mil]

KenV,

As expected, you have quoted my first sentence and ignored the rest. Any chance, for once, of a complete answer?

Oh my goodness. The gross ignorance of the above statement is matched only by the certain confidence with which it was stated.

Google "Boeing JSF" and you will get literally thousands of pictures of a very ugly airplane.

If Googling is problematic, dude, try one of the links below

And here is my point. The Boeing thing was dismissed many years ago. As such, there is no Boeing JSF. You are just trying to pick a fight, as you have on several other threads here. You are starting to look like either a troll or a Walt. What is your background, by the way?

[peter we]

Ken, many participants have commented on your,well, preposterous and argumentative stance

It would be more accurate to say you have ganged up in order to abuse him. Why don't you just come out and say that nobody with a positive attitude towards the F-35 is welcome in this topic.

Ken, stop wasting your time posting here, only bad things allowed.

[Courtney Mil]

Peter we,

A fine accusation. Just for the record, explain to everyone what my attitude towards the F-35 is. Please.

[peter we]

You are an exception in being open minded, critical and fair. And for what its worth I think you are mainly right in what you say about the F-35, but its immaterial. It will be made to work over time.

BTW, the argument that there isn't enough F-22's, keep in mind that the Russians will only have 12 PAK-FA's. Assuming they can get the design right, the Indians are most unimpressed, and that they can afford even that number.

[rh200]

It would be more accurate to say you have ganged up in order to abuse him. Why don't you just come out and say that nobody with a positive attitude towards the F-35 is welcome in this topic.

Seems to be a reasonable assesment of a lot of posters.

What I like about this thread, is that there are obviously a lot of posters who have an extremly good technical, an practical background on the various issues involveled. As such it is a very good learning thread.

But there does seem to be intertwined the "haters". I also fined it interesting that some of the people, who obviously are extremely capable can appear to be naive in regards to some technicalitys, and the reality of strategic decisions.

Ability to defend itself, a statement that can mean anything, too what level and standard against what?

Ability to provide CAP, again to what standard and level.

These things work on measurable metrics, metrics which trade lives off against cost., sad but true. most of us know why countries like Aus and canada etc. are getting the F35, whether we like it or not. And most of the military decision makers will as well.

As such most of the discussion on this thread really is more in relation to minutia and strategic decisions of our respective countrys and how they should respond to a threat.