F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Heathrow Harry]

Courtney - maybe you should publish (on the web so it can be kept up to date)

The Official Index to "F-35 Cancelled"

it's getting hard to track the various issues.......

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

Yes, the claims about outclassing Gen4/4.5 aircraft were made, but no longer appear on the various websites - certainly gone from the headlines on the LM one. Hardly surprising.

As for WVR manoeuvre, this was discussed here at some length back in (what?) 2013? My point there was that without knowing the F-35 (A, B and C) figures, we can't do meaningful SEP/rate/radius/g comparisons. We can only read what a man that flies it says about these things - there are a million (insert your own frealistic figure) uses of phrases such as, "do you have a link for that?". Yes, the man that raised some issues about manoeuvre.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-F-35; but I am happy to debate and enquire about its capabilities. Both the "pro" and "anti" factions need to appreciate that being critical does not mean being burnt at the stake any more. To be fair, I think most of the so-called "nay-Sayers", "Detractors" one"antis" are actually firmly in the same camp; it's just that we are too readily labelled by fans that don't like heresy.

But, yes, the claims about all metrics were made. Sorry I can't be arsed to look any further to fail to find them.

I would say that we are [unfortunately] locked into the F-35B, via a combination of [coughs] business acumen and political narcissism [what, change my mind again-never-what would the proles think] .

However to attempt to portray the airframe as a quantum step forwards was dishonest to say the least.

As to the Avionics, software and LO, well they are what, 10-15 years old already, neither fully developed or providing what the manufacturer claimed and actually may well not be relevant when the airframe eventually meets it's supposed operational standards baseline in what, 5 years time, minimum??

So you can discuss helmets and looking through the floor to your hearts content, but if the aircraft is in the position of being obsolescent by the time it matures in operational service well what do you do then???? Are we at the cusp of manned aircraft being obsolescent already????/

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

Has China been able to make their indigenous engine work in the J-10? Or is it still powered by the Russian AL-31? And if so, will Russia permit China to export that engine to Iran?

Betting money is yes, but that's a guess. I am not sure how deep the SCO runs, in terms of what level of cooperation on defense matters the parties undertake.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by glad rag

So you can discuss helmets and looking through the floor to your hearts content, but if the aircraft is in the position of being obsolescent by the time it matures in operational service well what do you do then???? Are we at the cusp of manned aircraft being obsolescent already????/

It's been my belief for over a decade that the F-35 is the last manned "fighter" the US will build. (If I am wrong, fine.) Big reasons are the time to develop the next marginal increase in capability versus cost versus other options for the same defense dollar.

The promise of platforms like X-47B will keep attracting funding, as UAV have for the last 20 years. A core reason for this is that people are darned expensive.

Speculation Begins:
I suspect that there's a deeper motivation. I have found out that non-pilots frequently have a hard time dealing with pilots ... understandable, since they have to admit that they are lesser beings. There's double motive, therefore, to pursue a unmanned strike fighter of whatever people want to call the next generation ... and they won't have to buy a million dollar helmet for each pilot!

(OK, will all of the Navs, BN's and RIOs commence with brick throwing, and when we are done we all buy lots of beer for the folks who keep these things flying ... )

Anyway, F-35 looks to be the last of the breed, to me. Been a hell of a ride since Biggles flew over the trench lines in France, eh?

X-47B UCAS Makes Aviation History?Again!

[Courtney Mil]

Ken, further to Lonewolf's post (7205), I think the WS-10 is a long way off. As for sales, I'm pretty sure Russia will want a say on who the engine goes to, but they're not usually very picky. As long as it's not the French at the moment, I doubt they'll care much.

Moving on to unmanned vs manned, I can see that happening for air-to-ground, but I suspect there will still be "men" in the air-to-air role for a while yet. Yes, possible to fly from a cabin on the other side of the world, but I think we'll need to push the boundaries of bandwidth and latency a long way yet. Or are we going to have the RoE for autonomous fighters? Hell of a ride, as you say, LoneWolf; Biggles to Battlestar Galactica

[WhiteOvies]

Lonewolf - the secret is in the timing, the Dutch political call to pull out was perhaps left too late...

Billy Flynn and Doc Nelson (the test pilot cited in the F-16 DACT report) are colleagues at LM who both work together alongside the test pilots from BAeS, the US Military and Partner nation military test pilots. The point of Development Test is to be critical and the inclusion of Military test pilots, FTEs and Maintainers on the Integrated Test Forces was to ensure that the F-35 was developed with the frontline in mind from the outset. Call it 'keeping Industry honest' if you will, but what it has meant is that the varied real world experiences from USN, USAF, USMC, RN, RAF, BAeS and all the others have been used to get the aircrfat to where it is now and push capabilities further in the future.

Glad Rag, I can assure you that the F-35 is a massive leap forward to what we in the UK are used to. Have you considered the vintage of the avionics currently fitted to Typhoon and Tornado when making statements about the design age of the F-35 system? For aerodynamic performance comparisons look for interviews with the RAF and RN aircrew who have actually flown the F-35 to get their opinion. Luckily due to experience that the UK has with Harrier, Typhoon, Merlin etc. the RN and RAF actually have a significant number of personnel who are well versed and experienced in composite repairs, including the challenges presented by doing this whilst embarked on a ship.

My personal opinion on your question regarding manned aircraft being obsolete is that we are nowhere near that point yet. The current technology demonstrators in test (X-47B, Taranis, Neuron etc) are not anywhere close to being "fighters". Deep strike and reconnaisance platforms from a host nation or CVN maybe but they are not designed for or thought of as air-air combat platforms.

Whilst the tecnology will continue to develop, and the work that the X-47B team are doing is incredible, there is no point in waiting around until something useful for what the UK needs is developed in however many years.

[glad rag]

Luckily due to experience that the UK has with Harrier, Typhoon, Merlin etc. the RN and RAF actually have a significant number of personnel who are well versed and experienced in composite repairs, including the challenges presented by doing this whilst embarked on a ship.

Interesting point but I think you will find that:-

A. None of the UK military services that operate FJ actually repair anything anymore. Change components, yes, repair no. And that has been for almost a decade I believe.

B. Above is a mute point as any trained, authorised and experienced personnel [see above again] have long left the service[s].
Good luck in getting civil contractors [yes the ones who ^^^ got out^^^] on board any tub in an operational/war scenario.

"not for all the tea in china"

Of course HMG can recall whomever they like...

[WhiteOvies]

Glad Rag, those are foolish and insulting statements to make. I'm going to leave it at that.

[glad rag]

WO sorry if I've upset you.

But those are facts.

Apologies again.

gr.

[WhiteOvies]

Not in the Sqn I'm on or my friends or colleagues in the FAA and RAF.

Also facts.

Not upset, just disappointed in your opinion of the aircraft engineers in the Forces.

[glad rag]

What do you operate under?

[WhiteOvies]

Shall I just post up my CV??

[Lonewolf_50]

Above is a mute point

I'd always heard of a "moot point" but maybe on this side of the pond it's different.

@White Ovies:

Agree that as of this writing, XB-47 is still in the 'great potential' category and a work in progress. (I recall how long ago XV-15 was first out and about flying, and how long it took to get V-22 IOC ...)

If we look at the life span of fighters in the jet age, it appears that a good design has about a 30 year life span, with the Phantom being a bit of an outlier in terms of longer. Tomcat went a bit past 30 years. F-18 A/B's are about done, not sure how much longer the C/D's will be in service. E/F's are comparatively new (mid-late 90's, right?)

Let's say F-35 gets IOC in 2016-2017 time frame ... they'll be flying about until 2047-2050.

What does 30 years means in development? F-18 to F-35 is one template to follow.

On a different layer of complexity, rotary wing, the AH-1G showed up as an attack helicopter in 1965/1967, but as it had some commonality with the Huey ... maybe a bad example, but I'll roll with it.

30 years later, 1996, Comanche was flying. The difference in capability and tech was profound.
(Sure, at that point the Mission Systems weren't quite there yet, and sadly, Comanche lost the great budget wars).

Is there a breakthrough pending that makes 6th gen FJ something substantially different from this 5th gen? I've no idea.
We probably don't know fully what "5th gen" does/means for a while in the multi role fighter. It's early yet.

In the meantime, the AI side is just now opening doors they couldn't ten years ago, which suggests to me that projects similar to XB-47 will see faster rates of capability improvement than the move from 5th to 6th gen, or maybe they both join up in 6th gen.

OK, head hurts, off for a cup of coffee.

[Royalistflyer]

I wonder if LO hit the nail on the head? I have for some time wondered if KenV was in fact an LM troll - maybe an employee or something? He seems to have gone quiet, so maybe we can get back to our own discussion whether the F35 is right for the UK.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Royalistflyer

He seems to have gone quiet, so maybe we can get back to our own discussion whether the F35 is right for the UK.

Is that what this thread is about?
Just about the F-35 and the UK?

You could have fooled me.

PS: as noted by myself previously, seems not to be cancelled any time soon. Given that page 1 was presented in the year of our Lord 2010, three weeks shy of five years ago today, might it be time to shut this thread down?

I can see an argument against being "shut it down the day IOC happens for the RAF."

[alfred_the_great]

Originally Posted by glad rag

WO sorry if I've upset you.

But those are facts.

Apologies again.

gr.

You're making things up aren't you?

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Courtney Mil

Ken, further to Lonewolf's post (7205), I think the WS-10 is a long way off. As for sales, I'm pretty sure Russia will want a say on who the engine goes to, but they're not usually very picky. As long as it's not the French at the moment, I doubt they'll care much.

Maybe not. But Iran is pretty close to Russia. And given the state of the current "nuclear agreements", that would put another less than friendly nuclear power at their door step. Would they want to assist in giving them a delivery platform?

[KenV]

Originally Posted by Royalistflyer

I have for some time wondered if KenV was in fact an LM troll - maybe an employee or something? He seems to have gone quiet, so maybe we can get back to our own discussion whether the F35 is right for the UK.

For the record I am currently employed by LM's top rival, Boeing.

And "gone quiet??!!" Not in the least.

And "back to your own discussion?" I had no idea this was a private thread for a select few in the UK only. Should I be embarrassed for having trespassed?

And "right for the UK"? I thought this was a LM bashing thread. It sure has that look and feel.

[Courtney Mil]

LoneWolf is correct, Royalist. This is not a UK site.

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by KenV

And "right for the UK"? I thought this was a LM bashing thread. It sure has that look and feel.

Not really justified. There are plenty of folk here with the full spectrum of views. Were it not for that, there wouldn't be much discussion and the thread would end up like the hundred or so F-35 fan threads on F-16.org where everyone just keeps posting how wonderful everything is. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but not of much interest if one is capable of independent thought.

Yep, plenty of UK folk who don't blindly trust defence manufacturers, with good reason. Remember there is a history in the UK of bashing BAES, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for very wrong ones - changing political requirements, changing military requirements from MoD and some massive differences of opinion with consortium partners, among other things. So it's hardly surprising that there are lots of people around that are not easily taken in by contractors' glossy brochures and assurances that all is well.

LM have not been flawless in the programme and there's nothing wrong with examining those flaws. The press and other open sources have often been dramatically wrong or just plain disingenuous (been wanting to use that word for years). We are fortunate to have lots of well-informed people here to keep us all straight when the arguments go beyond the bounds of reason.

Just my thoughts. Everyone keep doing what we do here and keep on self-policing when the "banter" gets too harsh.