F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of news items from the af.mil website...
Hill activates their first F-35 fighter squadron > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
Ground testing for F-35 gun conducted at Edwards AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
-RP
Hill activates their first F-35 fighter squadron > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
Ground testing for F-35 gun conducted at Edwards AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How soon we forget, JTO
Isn't there 150 rounds on the Typhoon?
Isn't there 150 rounds on the Typhoon?
In 2001, it was announced that the RAF
would not use the aircraft's internal 27 mm Mauser cannon. This was due to a desire to save money by removing gun support costs, ammunition stocks, training costs, etc. The gun was also deemed unnecessary since the missile armament was believed to be adequate in the Typhoon's fighter role. However, because removal of the cannon would affect the aircraft's flight characteristics, requiring modification of the aircraft's flight software the RAF decided that all of its Typhoons would be fitted with the cannon but that it would not be used or supported. The service argued that this would save money by reducing the requirement for ground equipment, removing training costs and avoiding the fatigue effects of firing the cannon. The RAF maintained the option to activate the cannons at very short notice were operational requirements to change.[14] However in a third change of policy, the Daily Telegraph reported on 3 October 2006 that the RAF will fully utilise the cannon.
Last edited by a1bill; 26th Jul 2015 at 16:49.
Particularly in A2A, a revolver cannon does not need as many rounds as a Gatling because it has a shorter time-to-rate and can therefore fire a shorter burst for the same effect.
The Su-27's GSh-301 is not even a revolver cannon - it's a recoil-operated autocannon and has effectively zero time-to-rate.
The Su-27's GSh-301 is not even a revolver cannon - it's a recoil-operated autocannon and has effectively zero time-to-rate.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think irrational criticism and false claims tend to diminish this thread.
GR, the RAF has a max 55k celling on the typhoon
RAF - Typhoon FGR4
GR, the RAF has a max 55k celling on the typhoon
RAF - Typhoon FGR4
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think irrational criticism and false claims tend to diminish this thread. the RAF has a max 55k celling on the typhoon.
Could be the RAF are like the police who claim their cars have a max speed of 125 mph, when in fact they go to 160 mph, advantage police or RAF, whichever…
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad
I've got nothing against the Typhoon, but to call it combat proven is a joke.
It has never been tested.
Spitfire is combat proven.
A10 is combat proven.
Apache.
FRS1
ME109
P51
All these things have done their job against real opposition and been found effective.
Until 100 Typhoon have fought against 100 Su27 or Mig 29 then its just guesswork.
Lobbing bombs from safety is just a sideline. A C130 could do the job as well and cheaper
I've got nothing against the Typhoon, but to call it combat proven is a joke.
It has never been tested.
Spitfire is combat proven.
A10 is combat proven.
Apache.
FRS1
ME109
P51
All these things have done their job against real opposition and been found effective.
Until 100 Typhoon have fought against 100 Su27 or Mig 29 then its just guesswork.
Lobbing bombs from safety is just a sideline. A C130 could do the job as well and cheaper
Tourist,
Calm down, Dear. I think it was pretty obvious to anyone that glad rag's point was that Typhoon has met a lot of specified requirements and has been deployed on ops. I don't recall 100 v 100 DACT being one of the requirements. But if that is your metric, then by all means go for that. It might be a long time before we can draw any comparisons by your metric.
Back to the point, IOC must be close now.
Calm down, Dear. I think it was pretty obvious to anyone that glad rag's point was that Typhoon has met a lot of specified requirements and has been deployed on ops. I don't recall 100 v 100 DACT being one of the requirements. But if that is your metric, then by all means go for that. It might be a long time before we can draw any comparisons by your metric.
Back to the point, IOC must be close now.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, the comment was meant in general and not necessarily directed to GR, who I tried to make a separate comment to. Otherwise I might have asked why GR thinks the Typhoon can supercruise above 60k.
Is it possible that he RAF 55k limit may be an atmosphere one for the pilot?
Is it possible that he RAF 55k limit may be an atmosphere one for the pilot?
It's easy to to work out when there is no '35 news or when we are all waiting for some by the drifts into other jets.
We have a pretty good idea what Typhoon can do. It's been doing it for some time. I'm very much looking forward to JSF IOC. It will be the first truly operational endorsement, albeit with some political pressure.
Now, what is the question about an in-service platform?
A1, it was a quoted aircraft capability, nothing to do with what limits are placed upon it.
We have a pretty good idea what Typhoon can do. It's been doing it for some time. I'm very much looking forward to JSF IOC. It will be the first truly operational endorsement, albeit with some political pressure.
Now, what is the question about an in-service platform?
A1, it was a quoted aircraft capability, nothing to do with what limits are placed upon it.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 27th Jul 2015 at 22:09.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its nothing to do with calming down.
Typhoon has never seen combat. Combat is a two way fight. lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat.
To call it combat proven loses all credibility.
As I said, I have nothing against the typhoon, I think it is probably great, but until it actually goes up against some opposition then it is not combat proven.
This sort of pro typhoon fanboy talk is as bad as the over enthusiastic F35 proponents and brings nothing to the discussion.
Typhoon has never seen combat. Combat is a two way fight. lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat.
To call it combat proven loses all credibility.
As I said, I have nothing against the typhoon, I think it is probably great, but until it actually goes up against some opposition then it is not combat proven.
This sort of pro typhoon fanboy talk is as bad as the over enthusiastic F35 proponents and brings nothing to the discussion.
Last edited by Tourist; 28th Jul 2015 at 05:23.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Typhoon has never seen combat. Combat is a two way fight. lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the raison d'être of the F35 is to operate in an extremely high threat environment and render the threat ineffective.
Added to this of course is the fact that F35s primary role is to lob bombs from above.
Primary role of Typhoon is to shoot down other aircraft.
It has shot down none whatsoever, and even the bomb lobbing had helpers.
Added to this of course is the fact that F35s primary role is to lob bombs from above.
Primary role of Typhoon is to shoot down other aircraft.
It has shot down none whatsoever, and even the bomb lobbing had helpers.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the key bits of info from the F-16 vs F-35 debate which seems to have been missed in the vitriol of previous pages was the test pilot's conclusion that the flight envelope of the F-35 can be opened up by further tweaking the flight control software. That's why AF2 (a Development Test asset) was used. The continued progress of Development Test, which then feeds into the Operational Test environment, which then flows into the frontline will mean that the frontline pilots do not have to make it up as they go along or work it out for themselves. No doubt there is plenty of DACT being flown so that further enhancements can be made.
Versions of ALIS have been in use since the start of the Development Test program, another system that is being finessed as problems are encountered and where direct hands-on experience from Military maintainers embedded at the Integrated Test Forces (Edwards and Pax River) is always listened to. Likewise the Reliability and Maintainability teams have been collecting data since AF1,BF1 and CF1 first started flying. Reality vs models of sustainment is a full time job for more people than you might think. One of the key tests for the recent OT1 embarkation on WASP was to see how ALIS worked in that environment. Remember that ALIS is really a system of systems, not one giant,stand alone chunk of software.
Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B. It is still the only UK fighter to be fitted with an AESA radar for a start, trials with ASRAAM and PW4 have already started. In fact the dates between Typhoons and F-35 dropping PW4 weapons were surprisingly close.
People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.
Versions of ALIS have been in use since the start of the Development Test program, another system that is being finessed as problems are encountered and where direct hands-on experience from Military maintainers embedded at the Integrated Test Forces (Edwards and Pax River) is always listened to. Likewise the Reliability and Maintainability teams have been collecting data since AF1,BF1 and CF1 first started flying. Reality vs models of sustainment is a full time job for more people than you might think. One of the key tests for the recent OT1 embarkation on WASP was to see how ALIS worked in that environment. Remember that ALIS is really a system of systems, not one giant,stand alone chunk of software.
Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B. It is still the only UK fighter to be fitted with an AESA radar for a start, trials with ASRAAM and PW4 have already started. In fact the dates between Typhoons and F-35 dropping PW4 weapons were surprisingly close.
People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the key bits of info from the F-16 vs F-35 debate which seems to have been missed in the vitriol of previous pages was the test pilot's conclusion that the flight envelope of the F-35 can be opened up by further tweaking the flight control software. That's why AF2 (a Development Test asset) was used. The continued progress of Development Test, which then feeds into the Operational Test environment, which then flows into the frontline will mean that the frontline pilots do not have to make it up as they go along or work it out for themselves. No doubt there is plenty of DACT being flown so that further enhancements can be made.
Versions of ALIS have been in use since the start of the Development Test program, another system that is being finessed as problems are encountered and where direct hands-on experience from Military maintainers embedded at the Integrated Test Forces (Edwards and Pax River) is always listened to. Likewise the Reliability and Maintainability teams have been collecting data since AF1,BF1 and CF1 first started flying. Reality vs models of sustainment is a full time job for more people than you might think. One of the key tests for the recent OT1 embarkation on WASP was to see how ALIS worked in that environment. Remember that ALIS is really a system of systems, not one giant,stand alone chunk of software.
Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B. It is still the only UK fighter to be fitted with an AESA radar for a start, trials with ASRAAM and PW4 have already started. In fact the dates between Typhoons and F-35 dropping PW4 weapons were surprisingly close.
People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.
Versions of ALIS have been in use since the start of the Development Test program, another system that is being finessed as problems are encountered and where direct hands-on experience from Military maintainers embedded at the Integrated Test Forces (Edwards and Pax River) is always listened to. Likewise the Reliability and Maintainability teams have been collecting data since AF1,BF1 and CF1 first started flying. Reality vs models of sustainment is a full time job for more people than you might think. One of the key tests for the recent OT1 embarkation on WASP was to see how ALIS worked in that environment. Remember that ALIS is really a system of systems, not one giant,stand alone chunk of software.
Given that the decision of the UK, taken back in 2003, was that the carriers would not need an organic A-A/swing role platform and hence JFH could safely go to an all GR9 force, the UK is taking a huge leap forward with F-35B. It is still the only UK fighter to be fitted with an AESA radar for a start, trials with ASRAAM and PW4 have already started. In fact the dates between Typhoons and F-35 dropping PW4 weapons were surprisingly close.
People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.