F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
I was reading in an old article in the Daily Mail that the rotating weapon bays are unable to carry the full specified load, indeed, only half that specified?
This is on the B variant again. Altogether, I've never heard of such an awful predicament in terms of defence procurement. Firstly, the country's broke and daren't spread the misery of belt tightening evenly (i.e. NHS, Overseas Pocket Money) so defence spending will face more financial surgery to remove a vital organ or two. Secondly, We're only hanging on to the Carriers (not criticism per se) because it would cost more money to have gotten rid. Thirdly, the damn things have been designed so that the only fixed wing beast that can operate from them is the F-35B! Fourthly, F-35B is the runt of the litter. Fifthly, The F-35 project has proved to be the very inverse and opposite of what it was intended to address in terms of various allied countries economies and future air defence requirements, a financial disaster and a complete disappointment as an asset....
So I gather!?!?!?!?!
FB
This is on the B variant again. Altogether, I've never heard of such an awful predicament in terms of defence procurement. Firstly, the country's broke and daren't spread the misery of belt tightening evenly (i.e. NHS, Overseas Pocket Money) so defence spending will face more financial surgery to remove a vital organ or two. Secondly, We're only hanging on to the Carriers (not criticism per se) because it would cost more money to have gotten rid. Thirdly, the damn things have been designed so that the only fixed wing beast that can operate from them is the F-35B! Fourthly, F-35B is the runt of the litter. Fifthly, The F-35 project has proved to be the very inverse and opposite of what it was intended to address in terms of various allied countries economies and future air defence requirements, a financial disaster and a complete disappointment as an asset....
So I gather!?!?!?!?!
FB
FC - Refer you to this post...
One of the first debates over stealth concerned whether it was indeed possible to build a stealth air-to-air combat platform, because at that point all fighters had one thing in common, to wit, a bloody great RF searchlight in the nose.
The solution for the ATF/F-22 was more reliance on passive RF, low-probability of intercept radar, IRST, sensor fusion and offboard (AWACS), to get first-look, first-shot, first-kill with AMRAAM. Basically this is where Team F-35 still hangs its hat in the BVR regime.
This has been chipped away at, in subsequent years. MAWS, better EW and agility say "you may get the first look but you're going to have to get close for a high-Pk shot." A bit of RAM and much, much better passive and active EW conspire to raise the LPI bar a lot higher - trying to detect, much less track, a fighter without giving your own presence and location away gets much harder.
Dealing with leakers in WVR was another issue. Some said "Stealth rules, win in BVR and that's all" - look at the YF-23. The AF wanted belt and braces, so the F-22 ended up with a complex and heavy AIM-9 installation that gave wide-field-of-regard LOBL. The T-50 and J-20 have basically the same thing. It wouldn't fit on JSF.
However, the idea with JSF is to track everyone all the time in ACM with EO-DAS, and blast through the fight in a straight line while launching LOAL AIM-9X at the threat. But as mentioned, it can't carry AIM-9 in stealth mode - and the task of validating that EO-DAS works as advertised and will stitch its six sensors together while trying to assemble a 3D picture from 2D data sounds... interesting.
One of the first debates over stealth concerned whether it was indeed possible to build a stealth air-to-air combat platform, because at that point all fighters had one thing in common, to wit, a bloody great RF searchlight in the nose.
The solution for the ATF/F-22 was more reliance on passive RF, low-probability of intercept radar, IRST, sensor fusion and offboard (AWACS), to get first-look, first-shot, first-kill with AMRAAM. Basically this is where Team F-35 still hangs its hat in the BVR regime.
This has been chipped away at, in subsequent years. MAWS, better EW and agility say "you may get the first look but you're going to have to get close for a high-Pk shot." A bit of RAM and much, much better passive and active EW conspire to raise the LPI bar a lot higher - trying to detect, much less track, a fighter without giving your own presence and location away gets much harder.
Dealing with leakers in WVR was another issue. Some said "Stealth rules, win in BVR and that's all" - look at the YF-23. The AF wanted belt and braces, so the F-22 ended up with a complex and heavy AIM-9 installation that gave wide-field-of-regard LOBL. The T-50 and J-20 have basically the same thing. It wouldn't fit on JSF.
However, the idea with JSF is to track everyone all the time in ACM with EO-DAS, and blast through the fight in a straight line while launching LOAL AIM-9X at the threat. But as mentioned, it can't carry AIM-9 in stealth mode - and the task of validating that EO-DAS works as advertised and will stitch its six sensors together while trying to assemble a 3D picture from 2D data sounds... interesting.
My Dear Frostchamber,
The Daily Mail is simply a conduit for another source. Frankly, this is just another report to reach the public domain which highlights yet another F-35 related problem.
FB
The Daily Mail is simply a conduit for another source. Frankly, this is just another report to reach the public domain which highlights yet another F-35 related problem.
FB
Sound advice Courtney, which I shall follow - although as it happens, life with Mrs Frostchamber has left me well practiced in facing such a situation.
FB I won't answer you question directly, although I will point out that there are better and less harmful ways of spending your precious time than reading old DM articles - for example (to pick one at random) hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a tin tray.
FB I won't answer you question directly, although I will point out that there are better and less harmful ways of spending your precious time than reading old DM articles - for example (to pick one at random) hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a tin tray.
FB I won't answer you question directly, although I will point out that there are better and less harmful ways of spending your precious time than reading old DM articles - for example (to pick one at random) hitting yourself repeatedly over the head with a tin tray.
But to rescue the thread from its current drift, which I accept full responsibility for, its back to the F-35, personally I think there's not a hope in hell.
FB
Hmmm, it is all a bit like the Eurozone's thoughts leading up to tonight's result in Greece - hope for the best but plan for the worst. One hopes that there really is a plan... 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
You are starting to look like either a troll or a Walt.
What is your background, by the way?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
Courtney is more than capable of answering for himself, and probably will soon, but any regular readers of his posts knows he is an ex UK fighter pilot, who has flown F-15s on an exchange tour with the US, and has had completed staff work on various fighter topics, with respect to both Typhoon and the early days of UK involvement with JSF.
You?
Courtney is more than capable of answering for himself, and probably will soon, but any regular readers of his posts knows he is an ex UK fighter pilot, who has flown F-15s on an exchange tour with the US, and has had completed staff work on various fighter topics, with respect to both Typhoon and the early days of UK involvement with JSF.
You?
Hope it is still OK to talk about the aircraft in here 
Seems live GBU 12 and 32's were air dropped from the B. Previous releases were inert I believe.
Marines on target with F-35 live-weapons release > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > News Display
Not sure what to gleam from "....the munitions employed by the pilots were the same as those dropped by legacy Marine Corps fixed-wing aircraft, but the dimensions, installation and technology that targets and employs them were different."
I get the targeting systems is different, and hanging it in the weapons bay is different, but dimensions? Is it a different dimension GBU? Maybe a smaller 32 is required to fit? Or I may be reading too much into it.
Seems live GBU 12 and 32's were air dropped from the B. Previous releases were inert I believe.
Marines on target with F-35 live-weapons release > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > News Display
Not sure what to gleam from "....the munitions employed by the pilots were the same as those dropped by legacy Marine Corps fixed-wing aircraft, but the dimensions, installation and technology that targets and employs them were different."
I get the targeting systems is different, and hanging it in the weapons bay is different, but dimensions? Is it a different dimension GBU? Maybe a smaller 32 is required to fit? Or I may be reading too much into it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
I am interested in your comments on the Zero. I feel you just have focussed on turn rate exclusively.
I am interested in your comments on the Zero. I feel you just have focussed on turn rate exclusively.
I suspect if you look at the energy manoverability spectrum a P-40 would have places where it can dictate the fight - probably by staying fast.
I think the F-35 can be more compared to the F-105 or the 104 in European duty than the A-7.
Of more relevance I'm interested how you think the F-35 stacks up?
Now, let's compare how the F-35 "stacks up" against any other airplane in the air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed. Both the Tornado and the F-35 were primarily designed for the tactical air-to-ground role. It would appear that NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment. I would assume the folks that are buying the F-35 are smart enough to know they've got a stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance. It's certainly MUCH better than a Tornado or even a Phantom in close in dog fighting. And oddly enough, plenty of air arms did quite well flying the Tornado and the Phantom.
Further, it seems to me that although the F-35 is meeting or exceeding its design specs, there are some folks here who insist the F-35 MUST be defective because it does not meet what they think its specs should be. They are welcome to their opinion, but plenty of folks here disagree (I'm one of them), and lots and lots and lots of very high level test, design, and procurement folks also disagree. Of course the handful of local self proclaimed experts insist they know better than all of them combined. And of course I am the bully when I stand up against them even though they significantly outnumber me.
Last edited by KenV; 6th Jul 2015 at 17:42.