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
And your citing of the F-35's "stellar" performance in "every other part of the dogfight regime" is of course completely unsupported by data. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's marketing puffery.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the trapeze plan has been dropped?
Oh, yes, of course, MSOCS. You're right that all my last few posts are specifically about IR from the weapons bay because I was responding to a point about exactly that. Sorry I can't tell you which post; I can't even remember where I left my car keys let alone a post from more than a couple of days ago! 
External carriage should be the same as any bomber. I think they've already done some of the carriage trials and I would expect the appropriate clearances to come at the appropriate time.
That said, my points about HOBS and LOAL still apply, it's just that (mostly) you don't need to rely on LOAL to launch from a wing or fuselage station, which (apart from stealth considerations) is a good thing.
External carriage should be the same as any bomber. I think they've already done some of the carriage trials and I would expect the appropriate clearances to come at the appropriate time.
That said, my points about HOBS and LOAL still apply, it's just that (mostly) you don't need to rely on LOAL to launch from a wing or fuselage station, which (apart from stealth considerations) is a good thing.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the F-35 doesn't need the Aim 9X at all. There is some cost savings! Which they've already identified btw.
It didn't look like it was immensely dangerous for the F-16.
When carrying the Aim 9X the F-35 couldn't sneak up on the F-16 either.
Unless it carries it internally. But that precious space is limited. This is the contradiction in the design that is being pointed out.
Not only may you "respectfully inquire" but you could find out for yourself.
However.
The US customers have no choice in the matter in any case. The Marines are happy because procurement is from the Navy aircraft budget and there has been no hint that they are expected to give up any other force structure to pay for the F-35. The AF's last leaders who advocated another fighter were fired.
The partner nations signed on when the jet was promised as 2700 pounds lighter, far less expensive to buy, available in 2012-13 and with equal operating costs to an F-16, and when Rafale and Typhoon were not in service and JAS 39E did not exist. None except Denmark has formally reviewed that commitment, despite the changes since that time.
Consequently, none of the "experts" in the other nations have access to the kind of data about non-F-35 solutions that would allow them to make a professional judgment as to whether (for instance) JAS 39E would meet their national needs at one-third the LCC. You don't get that access without a real competition (and not a Netherlands-style beauty contest).
Korea carried out a rules-based competition, which the F-15SE won. The decision was then reversed using additional criteria that were secret, so there are no grounds for assuming that U.S. political pressure was not influential if not decisive.
The F-35 won in Japan, against Typhoon (almost unthinkable) and Super Hornet, which was at that time still hobbled by official and unrealistic insistence that its OSD would be around 2030. It was chosen by Israel, for specific missions (read "A2G"), but Israel is not spending its own money.
However.
The US customers have no choice in the matter in any case. The Marines are happy because procurement is from the Navy aircraft budget and there has been no hint that they are expected to give up any other force structure to pay for the F-35. The AF's last leaders who advocated another fighter were fired.
The partner nations signed on when the jet was promised as 2700 pounds lighter, far less expensive to buy, available in 2012-13 and with equal operating costs to an F-16, and when Rafale and Typhoon were not in service and JAS 39E did not exist. None except Denmark has formally reviewed that commitment, despite the changes since that time.
Consequently, none of the "experts" in the other nations have access to the kind of data about non-F-35 solutions that would allow them to make a professional judgment as to whether (for instance) JAS 39E would meet their national needs at one-third the LCC. You don't get that access without a real competition (and not a Netherlands-style beauty contest).
Korea carried out a rules-based competition, which the F-15SE won. The decision was then reversed using additional criteria that were secret, so there are no grounds for assuming that U.S. political pressure was not influential if not decisive.
The F-35 won in Japan, against Typhoon (almost unthinkable) and Super Hornet, which was at that time still hobbled by official and unrealistic insistence that its OSD would be around 2030. It was chosen by Israel, for specific missions (read "A2G"), but Israel is not spending its own money.
Last edited by LowObservable; 14th Jul 2015 at 11:56.
HOBS and LOAL are both valid technical solutions (BVRAAMs are all LOAL) but it's the combination of the two that gets tricky, particularly at close range where the angle rates are highest. While in theory the datalinked IR AAMs (AIM-9X Block II and ASRAAM MLU) can do it, CM has outlined the limitations of launching from a ventral bay where LOS is interrupted.
So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.
"Over-the-shoulder" can be LOBL if the target is near 9-3 when the missile is fired - I believe that's the main selling point for Python 5.
So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.
"Over-the-shoulder" can be LOBL if the target is near 9-3 when the missile is fired - I believe that's the main selling point for Python 5.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, you can tell the mx where to look for its intended target and you can tell it what the target is doing at launch. You can't tell the mx what the target does after launch, you can't tell the mx what else might be in the (expanding) uncertainty box and you can't easily determine what the mx has targeted when and if it finds something to go after.
Would I like my wingman shooting a LOAL mx into my furball? Erm, not really, thank you.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.
Come on Ken, you've got some good arguments, but regrettably they're being undermined by the passive aggressive manner with which you're framing them ("May I respectfully point out...").
There's no need for it - we're all enthusiasts here.
There's no need for it - we're all enthusiasts here.
I think everyone here understands the difference between weapons carriage that is stealthy until the WVR fight starts, and external carriage. In WVR, RCS by definition no longer matters. So your point is entirely invalid. Again.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Courtney, I'm sure someone would know. I would have thought the wingman would have the encoding to mid-course update the missile if needed or even launch and target a missile from the leading platform ?
gald rag: Be a bit messy. Another Iranian Airbus that is. Or a Malaysian 777 for that matter.....depends on your ROE I guess but you septics don't have the best of records do you..
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So far, the F-35 has retreated from its initial position on HOBS weapons, which involved ASRAAM and a trapeze. This would still have been limited, compared to the F-22/J-20/T-50 solution, because of seeker FOV from the rail. Now, as we know, F-35 has no HOBS solution in stealth mode.
Lingchi indeed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a conspiracy theory??
a derogatory slur ???
My, you really want to have your cake and eat it.
We were doing so well for a while, just going after the topic and not each other. I'd like to see us return to that.
(I'd also like to see the F-35 be less expensive, so maybe this is a vain hope).
As to ORI: Been on a few ships at sea doing ORI: a wringer.
User of a perjorative term is not necessary, and the 20+ year ago Airbus shoot down by a guided missile cruiser (that did not have visual) has about BFA to do with the F-35.
There are enough axes to grind about the F-35 without brining in Off Topic issues. Please stick with the topic of the thread.
There are enough axes to grind about the F-35 without brining in Off Topic issues. Please stick with the topic of the thread.
