F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Absolutely right.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.
(May I respectfully inquire how long it will take for the fan boys to call for WO's banishment from the forum?)
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Calm down, Dear.
Calm down, Dear.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
...
Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
People really should start looking at the positives for the UK and the other partner /export nations.
However, the question remains, how will AFs of Danemark, or Netherlands eg. fulfill their primary function of air-policing, with such an expensive plane that failed to meet its KPP in aspects that are crucial for that particular task?
After all, Danemark's and Dutch F35s will spend vast majority of their operational life doing air-policing, not bombing sheep in various 'stans or Chinas.
I believe this is an important question that deserves a considerable consideration and a meticulous declaration from LM/JPO.
RN is another matter and, IMO, F35B is a good replacement for Harrier and the only plane out of the three, worth pursuing.
Tourist,
The point has been made perfectly by others:
“There are those that know and then there are those that talk out of their hoop.”
You demonstrably do have something “against the Typhoon,” as is evident from your posts on this thread and elsewhere.
You say that: “Lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat.”
You should perhaps tell that to those mourning the losses of the Jordanian and Moroccan pilots in recent ops, or indeed to the Saudi F-15 crew who were luckier when they ejected from their aircraft.
The Typhoon has always been intended to be multi-role for the RAF (look back at AST403 or 409) and especially for the Saudis. Thus it’s not accurate to claim that: the “Primary role of Typhoon is to shoot down other aircraft.”
You’re equally inaccurate when claiming that: “even the bomb lobbing had helpers.” Typhoons in the Libyan do did sometimes take advantage of third party laser designation by Tornados, but they also spiked for themselves and for Tornado.
Since then, of course, the Saudis have used PWII and PWIV (self-designated using Damocles) and strafe in combat.
I’d call that pretty ‘proven’
The point has been made perfectly by others:
“There are those that know and then there are those that talk out of their hoop.”
You demonstrably do have something “against the Typhoon,” as is evident from your posts on this thread and elsewhere.
You say that: “Lobbing bombs from above in a near zero threat environment is not combat.”
You should perhaps tell that to those mourning the losses of the Jordanian and Moroccan pilots in recent ops, or indeed to the Saudi F-15 crew who were luckier when they ejected from their aircraft.
The Typhoon has always been intended to be multi-role for the RAF (look back at AST403 or 409) and especially for the Saudis. Thus it’s not accurate to claim that: the “Primary role of Typhoon is to shoot down other aircraft.”
You’re equally inaccurate when claiming that: “even the bomb lobbing had helpers.” Typhoons in the Libyan do did sometimes take advantage of third party laser designation by Tornados, but they also spiked for themselves and for Tornado.
Since then, of course, the Saudis have used PWII and PWIV (self-designated using Damocles) and strafe in combat.
I’d call that pretty ‘proven’
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitro, in my opinion (and experience) I really don't think the aircrew will be disappointed with the aircraft's performance. The question really for Denmark and the Netherlands is whether the cost involved limits the numbers purchased and hence the effectiveness of the force in completing their missions. It does however allow those countries politicians to bring more capability to the table when discussing coalition air operations. Whether the politicians see this as worth it when they decide on their Defence budgets is perhaps a different question....
Jacko, as I recall Typhoon was always touted as the Jaguar replacement. Unfortunately due to budget issues the A-G capabilities were put on the back burner initially.
Jacko, as I recall Typhoon was always touted as the Jaguar replacement. Unfortunately due to budget issues the A-G capabilities were put on the back burner initially.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I would expect you to divulge a personal conversation but I hope that your candid discussion was enlightening in all respects.
There is no denying the F-35 Program has its issues and challenges. There are priorities and challenges for all the respective US Services and foreign partners alike as they try to modernise their fleets. That said, I do also hope that the Col gave you some positive news from the F-35 world, Maus because as I've said for my entire time on this forum, there is a lot of excellent work and achievements that go unsung all too often.
Hope you enjoy Oshkosh!
There is no denying the F-35 Program has its issues and challenges. There are priorities and challenges for all the respective US Services and foreign partners alike as they try to modernise their fleets. That said, I do also hope that the Col gave you some positive news from the F-35 world, Maus because as I've said for my entire time on this forum, there is a lot of excellent work and achievements that go unsung all too often.
Hope you enjoy Oshkosh!
About the F-16 1 v. 1: The F-16 is an excellent dogfighter, while the F-35 has a greater un-refuelled range than the F-16, emphasizing the point that there are design trade-offs. He did not make excuses like the AF-2 was a development jet.
The A-10 vs. F-35 in CAS role: The A-10 is a more capable CAS platform - in a low-threat environment. If there was money, he thinks the USAF should keep it.
The status of the program in general: If you listen to Lockheed Martin, everything smells like roses. If you listen to the critics, it's a disaster. The truth is somewhere in between.
Visibility behind the jet: is not as good as in the Strike Eagle or F-22. He has personally only flown the front seat of the F-16 once, so he let his wingman that has experience in the F-16 answer that. The canopy design was affected by signature concerns.
The HMDS. His wingman likes the new HMDS. It's well balanced and is more comfortable than the F-16 helmet - particularly when equipped with NVGs / cueing system. The pilot can turn his head, and see the vertical stabs, and the O2 mask stays in place. Yes, he and others have dropped the helmet. He hasn't broken it yet, but other have: repaired not ruined. A new, more protective helmet bag was specifically designed for it. The wingman also prefers the more upright seating position in the F-35.
I stated that the aircraft seemed to be more of a F-117 replacement that can defend itself (rather than a fighter,) the Col refined my point, saying that the aircraft capabilities were more like a combination of the F-117 and a block 50/52 F-16.
Overall, the aircraft is a step up in terms of range, ground mode radar capabilities and situational awareness over the F-16 (and of course stealth.) Any performance tradeoffs can be mitigated by using the aircraft as it was designed: engaging enemies from a distance, and by fighting as a team.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, nothing against Typhoon. I like it and I like F22 despite neither of them being combat proven I just think people should be more honest about things. So far all these toys have been used against the equivalent of people who are attacking with sharpened mangos. Hardly combat.
Jacko, Are you under the impression that the Saudi F15 was shot down?
Jacko, Are you under the impression that the Saudi F15 was shot down?
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
I think, like many times before, the US NAVY has the right idea about what
the F35 really is and how it is best used.
Navy Doesn't Seem to Care That the F-35 Can't Dogfight | RealClearDefense
It's not an air dominance fighter, it's also not a CAS platform, maybe not even a real bomber like the Strike eagle or Rafale
It's a very useful force multiplier in addition/cooperation with other, cheaper and also more conventional fighter like platforms.
For the US NAVY the combination of AWACS (E2D), ship based radar/sensors, Satellite, GROWLER, the F35 will be the spear of the information and detection bubble, able to deploy near the edge of the danger zone (pun intended ref. to TOP GUN
).
Which again leads to the question, what's in it for us, how can we make it work ?
We might need a couple of squadrons of F35A's but not the wings our top brass is currently dreaming of.
Also makes anyone wonder on why they decided to make it look like a 9G fighter in stead of something a little more relevant and cheaper.
the F35 really is and how it is best used.
Navy Doesn't Seem to Care That the F-35 Can't Dogfight | RealClearDefense
Originally Posted by from the link
Navy Doesn't Seem to Care That the F-35 Can't Dogfight
To the sailing branch, the stealth fighter is a sensor
...
the JSF “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” to quote one infamous 2008 war game report.
But the U.S. Navy — the third-largest purchaser of F-35s — seems unperturbed. Indeed, in recent planning the Navy describes the JSF less as a traditional fighter than as radar-evading, flying sensor and communications node.
The Navy apparently doesn’t care that its F-35C version of the stealth jet — as well as the Marines’ F-35B model — is a poor performer in raw kinetic terms. In the sailing branch’s evolving battle scheme, the JSF will focus onfinding targets … for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down.
To be sure, the F-35 packs lots of high-tech sensors. In the nose — a Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 electronically-scanned radar composed of a thousand tiny transmitter-receivers. Under the nose — Lockheed Martin’s AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targeting System, basically a high-resolution, zooming camera.
In addition, the JSF comes with the Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, a bank of six infrared cameras scattered around the airframe that automatically detects heat plumes from incoming missiles and other threats. Finally, the F-35 boasts BAE Systems’ highly-sensitive AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, which listens for enemy radar signals.
Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the Navy’s top aviator, called the JSF’s sensor combo a “game-changer.” “Suck[ing] in all that information,” an F-35 can paint “a great, clear picture of who’s good and who’s bad.”
And that can help solve one of the Navy’s biggest problems — identifying targets at long range inside enemy lines so that surface ships and non-stealthy F/A-18 fighters can bring to bear their SM-6 and AIM-120 missiles, which can travel farther than the shooters’ sensors can see.
Indeed, the Navy is building an entire battle plan around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces. “The F-35 will lead the way ashore, disabling information nodes and grids, while providing the air-ground task force with unprecedented awareness of opposing challenges,” the Navy explained in itsNaval Aviation Vision planning document from 2014.
....
The Navy has a name for this battle plan — “Naval Integrated Fire Control — Counter-Air,” or NIFC-CA. There’s actually a lot more to it than just F-35s, F-18s and destroyers. At its heart, NIFC-CA is actually an expanded version of the Aegis system that equips all of the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.
To the sailing branch, the stealth fighter is a sensor
...
the JSF “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run,” to quote one infamous 2008 war game report.
But the U.S. Navy — the third-largest purchaser of F-35s — seems unperturbed. Indeed, in recent planning the Navy describes the JSF less as a traditional fighter than as radar-evading, flying sensor and communications node.
The Navy apparently doesn’t care that its F-35C version of the stealth jet — as well as the Marines’ F-35B model — is a poor performer in raw kinetic terms. In the sailing branch’s evolving battle scheme, the JSF will focus onfinding targets … for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down.
To be sure, the F-35 packs lots of high-tech sensors. In the nose — a Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 electronically-scanned radar composed of a thousand tiny transmitter-receivers. Under the nose — Lockheed Martin’s AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targeting System, basically a high-resolution, zooming camera.
In addition, the JSF comes with the Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System, a bank of six infrared cameras scattered around the airframe that automatically detects heat plumes from incoming missiles and other threats. Finally, the F-35 boasts BAE Systems’ highly-sensitive AN/ASQ-239 electronic warfare suite, which listens for enemy radar signals.
Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the Navy’s top aviator, called the JSF’s sensor combo a “game-changer.” “Suck[ing] in all that information,” an F-35 can paint “a great, clear picture of who’s good and who’s bad.”
And that can help solve one of the Navy’s biggest problems — identifying targets at long range inside enemy lines so that surface ships and non-stealthy F/A-18 fighters can bring to bear their SM-6 and AIM-120 missiles, which can travel farther than the shooters’ sensors can see.
Indeed, the Navy is building an entire battle plan around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces. “The F-35 will lead the way ashore, disabling information nodes and grids, while providing the air-ground task force with unprecedented awareness of opposing challenges,” the Navy explained in itsNaval Aviation Vision planning document from 2014.
....
The Navy has a name for this battle plan — “Naval Integrated Fire Control — Counter-Air,” or NIFC-CA. There’s actually a lot more to it than just F-35s, F-18s and destroyers. At its heart, NIFC-CA is actually an expanded version of the Aegis system that equips all of the Navy’s cruisers and destroyers.
It's a very useful force multiplier in addition/cooperation with other, cheaper and also more conventional fighter like platforms.
For the US NAVY the combination of AWACS (E2D), ship based radar/sensors, Satellite, GROWLER, the F35 will be the spear of the information and detection bubble, able to deploy near the edge of the danger zone (pun intended ref. to TOP GUN
).Which again leads to the question, what's in it for us, how can we make it work ?
We might need a couple of squadrons of F35A's but not the wings our top brass is currently dreaming of.
Also makes anyone wonder on why they decided to make it look like a 9G fighter in stead of something a little more relevant and cheaper.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
the JSF will focus onfinding targets … for older F/A-18 fighters and missile-armed warships to shoot down........ around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces...... Indeed, the Navy is building an entire battle plan around the F-35’s sensors and its ability to share sensor data via radio data-link, all while avoiding detection by enemy forces.
I mean, we've been through the issues of MADL being incompatible with the other air and sea assets without a relay like BACN, which the navy don't and not have up threat - and using L16 blows the stealth. So, as I say, Im a bit hazy on how this battle plan is going to work.
May I respectfully inquire how long it will take for the fan boys to call for WO's banishment from the forum?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist and Jackonicko,
Here is the story I read about the Saudi F-15 in the WSJ:
Hope this helps in your discussions…
Here is the story I read about the Saudi F-15 in the WSJ:
By
Julian E. Barnes
Updated March 27, 2015 9:17 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The U.S. rescued two Saudi Arabian airmen from the Gulf of Aden after their two-seater F-15 fighter jet crashed Thursday, a U.S. defense official said Friday.
The jet appears to have been taking part in operations over Yemen, however, the defense official wouldn’t say why the airmen ejected from the F-15 or why the plane went down over international waters.
Saudi Arabia requested assistance on Thursday afternoon Washington time from the U.S. after the airmen ejected from their plane, the official said.
An HH-60 helicopter flying from Djibouti, where the U.S. maintains a major regional base, recovered the two Saudi airmen at approximately 5:20 p.m. ET on Thursday. The recovery operation took about two hours from the time of notification to the rescue of the airmen, the defense official said.
The rescue operation, the official said, was coordinated by the USS Sterett, a destroyer operating in the region. The USS New York was also involved in the rescue, the official said.
The defense official said the two airmen were ambulatory after they recovered, but referred further questions to the Saudi government.
The request for assistance, the official said, was handled on the tactical level, not requiring contacts at high levels between the two governments. Military planners in the region took the call for emergency assistance and contacted the USS Sterett, which began the hunt for the pilots and called in the HH-60 from Djibouti
“It’s a great example of the logistical assistance we are providing,” said the U.S. official. The rescued airmen were initially taken back to the U.S. base in Djibouti, officials said.
The Saudi plane wasn’t shot down by enemy fire, the official said. While a mechanical problem is suspected, an investigation continues, the official said.
The destroyer USS Sterett, coordinated the rescue of the two Saudi pilots.
Saudi officials in Washington didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Julian E. Barnes
Updated March 27, 2015 9:17 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—The U.S. rescued two Saudi Arabian airmen from the Gulf of Aden after their two-seater F-15 fighter jet crashed Thursday, a U.S. defense official said Friday.
The jet appears to have been taking part in operations over Yemen, however, the defense official wouldn’t say why the airmen ejected from the F-15 or why the plane went down over international waters.
Saudi Arabia requested assistance on Thursday afternoon Washington time from the U.S. after the airmen ejected from their plane, the official said.
An HH-60 helicopter flying from Djibouti, where the U.S. maintains a major regional base, recovered the two Saudi airmen at approximately 5:20 p.m. ET on Thursday. The recovery operation took about two hours from the time of notification to the rescue of the airmen, the defense official said.
The rescue operation, the official said, was coordinated by the USS Sterett, a destroyer operating in the region. The USS New York was also involved in the rescue, the official said.
The defense official said the two airmen were ambulatory after they recovered, but referred further questions to the Saudi government.
The request for assistance, the official said, was handled on the tactical level, not requiring contacts at high levels between the two governments. Military planners in the region took the call for emergency assistance and contacted the USS Sterett, which began the hunt for the pilots and called in the HH-60 from Djibouti
“It’s a great example of the logistical assistance we are providing,” said the U.S. official. The rescued airmen were initially taken back to the U.S. base in Djibouti, officials said.
The Saudi plane wasn’t shot down by enemy fire, the official said. While a mechanical problem is suspected, an investigation continues, the official said.
The destroyer USS Sterett, coordinated the rescue of the two Saudi pilots.
Saudi officials in Washington didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, the question remains, how will AFs of Danemark, or Netherlands eg. fulfill their primary function of air-policing, with such an expensive plane that failed to meet its KPP in aspects that are crucial for that particular task?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grow up Ken FFS... we are all entitled to our opinion - that is the purpose of a forum after all
And yet..........there are a few among us who work very hard to shut some up, indulge in witch hunts, and/or push the moderators to ban them. Perhaps they need to be admonished to "grow up?"
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WhieOvies
It does however allow those countries politicians to bring more capability to the table when discussing coalition air operations. Whether the politicians see this as worth it when they decide on their Defence budgets is perhaps a different question....
For bombing sheep, I'd imagine F16 is more than enough, at a much lower cost.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
The Defense Department defines KPPs as “performance attributes of a system considered critical to the development of an effective military capability.” In plain English, a Service establishes multiple KPPs for a new weapon system, including attributes for its affordability, range/persistence, payload and weapons capacity, interoperability, sustainability, and even related training and force protection needs.
DoD should consider all of the ramifications of establishing cost as a KPP, but probably didn't as applied to the F-35. It is without question that avoiding 99 percent exquisite platforms that are so costly in favor of developing 80 percent capability solutions results in lowered costs, a higher potential for on time delivery to the customer and the possibility for actually acquiring the number of desired aircraft.
It is highly unlikely the cost goals (KPP) for new F-35 aircraft procurement will ever be met, the gap is too great to overcome. Secondly, an elephant in the living room is the affordability (cost) of maintaining the F-35 aircraft over time in various locations and conditions (KPP). There are no doubt hundreds of KPPs for the entire F-35 operating platform. For sure, some are not being met nor will they ever be met, such as weight for example. Now I will leave the flight capabilities to the pilots on the forum, but IMHO, not all will ever be met because some of the original KPPs have been changed (moving the goal posts) to make it appear all is well and being met. My suspicion is that we will get an 80% performer verses original promises, but pay as if we are getting a 99% performer, my honest opinion.
My I inquire as to which KPPs the F-35 "failed to meet?"
DoD should consider all of the ramifications of establishing cost as a KPP, but probably didn't as applied to the F-35. It is without question that avoiding 99 percent exquisite platforms that are so costly in favor of developing 80 percent capability solutions results in lowered costs, a higher potential for on time delivery to the customer and the possibility for actually acquiring the number of desired aircraft.
It is highly unlikely the cost goals (KPP) for new F-35 aircraft procurement will ever be met, the gap is too great to overcome. Secondly, an elephant in the living room is the affordability (cost) of maintaining the F-35 aircraft over time in various locations and conditions (KPP). There are no doubt hundreds of KPPs for the entire F-35 operating platform. For sure, some are not being met nor will they ever be met, such as weight for example. Now I will leave the flight capabilities to the pilots on the forum, but IMHO, not all will ever be met because some of the original KPPs have been changed (moving the goal posts) to make it appear all is well and being met. My suspicion is that we will get an 80% performer verses original promises, but pay as if we are getting a 99% performer, my honest opinion.