F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Suppose warfare was entirely based on hand weapons like swords and spears (as it was for centuries)
The victors of Agincourt and Crecy would beg to differ.
However, if you really want an analogy comparable in magnitude to the introduction of powder and shot, I suggest that you need to look to directed-energy weapons.
The victors of Agincourt and Crecy would beg to differ.
However, if you really want an analogy comparable in magnitude to the introduction of powder and shot, I suggest that you need to look to directed-energy weapons.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Mel, I think it was to sell them to Astan, wasn't it?
Alenia offers surplus AMX fighters to Afghanistan for close air support - 9/22/2009 - Flight Global
Alenia offers surplus AMX fighters to Afghanistan for close air support - 9/22/2009 - Flight Global
I'm not sure about that a1bill, but they certainly flew operationally which I think was the gist of the earlier comment http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/28/cleared-hot/
The Dutch M-346 situation is interesting, a sort of stealth mission creep.
It begins with saying "We need access to high-performance trainers", because they can afford only 37 (two squadrons) of F-35s and they're all single-seat. (The first high-g pull in a $100m F-35 is no time to find out that you just don't handle g very well.)
Next, you download some of your multi-aircraft training, so that your 2 v 2s are two F-35s v two M-346s. This requires some LVC training features and simulated weapons.
But then, if you have an Afghan/Iraq/Mali kind of operation with no air threat, you have combat-trained M-346 pilots and the aircraft is much less costly to deploy than the F-35.
It begins with saying "We need access to high-performance trainers", because they can afford only 37 (two squadrons) of F-35s and they're all single-seat. (The first high-g pull in a $100m F-35 is no time to find out that you just don't handle g very well.)
Next, you download some of your multi-aircraft training, so that your 2 v 2s are two F-35s v two M-346s. This requires some LVC training features and simulated weapons.
But then, if you have an Afghan/Iraq/Mali kind of operation with no air threat, you have combat-trained M-346 pilots and the aircraft is much less costly to deploy than the F-35.
@CourtneyMil
Understatement of the week. 
The armed services (at the program level) on this side of the pond, have certainly not helped that problem.
All firestorms aside, I am reminded of the V-22's consistently bad press and being bashed as it worked its way to IOC. And then, it went operational.
It's done a pretty solid job ... but like the F-35, is freakin' expensive.
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.
The armed services (at the program level) on this side of the pond, have certainly not helped that problem.
All firestorms aside, I am reminded of the V-22's consistently bad press and being bashed as it worked its way to IOC. And then, it went operational.
It's done a pretty solid job ... but like the F-35, is freakin' expensive.
The press and other open sources have often been dramatically wrong or just plain disingenuous
All firestorms aside, I am reminded of the V-22's consistently bad press and being bashed as it worked its way to IOC. And then, it went operational.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KB, yes like most trainers, they can weaponise it. When was the last time a decent air force sent a trainer to war?
And for decades the F-5 (also a trainer) was a front-line fighter for many nations, with more than a few seeing combat.
And the A-4 was also a trainer and was used very extensively in combat in Vietnam and in and around Israel. Not to mention the Maldives (oops, Falklands). ;-) I think USN has a pretty "decent" air force.
The A-37 was used extensively in combat in Vietnam, South America, and elsewhere. And USAF is a pretty "decent" Air Force.
So I believe there's a long history of using jet trainers as fighters.
Agree with your overall point Ken, but in half of those cases (F-5, A-4) I'd suggest that it was fighters being used as trainers, rather than the other way around.
That said, I think the distinctions are somewhat artificial in many cases. It is interesting to note that both the M-346 and Yak-130 were born out of a joint design, yet the former is a trainer with a secondary light attack/fighter capability, while the latter is a light attack/fighter with a secondary trainer capability.
That said, I think the distinctions are somewhat artificial in many cases. It is interesting to note that both the M-346 and Yak-130 were born out of a joint design, yet the former is a trainer with a secondary light attack/fighter capability, while the latter is a light attack/fighter with a secondary trainer capability.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that's even an option anymore Ken - USAF rules out international A-10 sales - 7/24/2015 - Flight Global
Last edited by KenV; 5th Aug 2015 at 13:57.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, I think the distinctions are somewhat artificial in many cases. It is interesting to note that both the M-346 and Yak-130 were born out of a joint design, yet the former is a trainer with a secondary light attack/fighter capability, while the latter is a light attack/fighter with a secondary trainer capability.
Errrm - the N-156 was conceived from the outset as a low-cost fighter. The trainer just got sold first.
Where do these young fellows learn history?
The V-22's an interesting case. Yes, it "works" and it does some unique things that helos can't - and so it should, when you compare both its cost and payload to a CH-47.
However, over the period where the merchants of transformational, revolutionary change directed a bazillion dollars into V-22 and Comanche, the Europeans built two major companies around good conventional helicopters and booted the U.S. out of much of the global market.
Where do these young fellows learn history?
The V-22's an interesting case. Yes, it "works" and it does some unique things that helos can't - and so it should, when you compare both its cost and payload to a CH-47.
However, over the period where the merchants of transformational, revolutionary change directed a bazillion dollars into V-22 and Comanche, the Europeans built two major companies around good conventional helicopters and booted the U.S. out of much of the global market.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The victors of Agincourt and Crecy would beg to differ.
Let's see if this not so young guy learned his history better than the "young fellows."
At both Crecy and Agincourt the British forces beat a much larger French force, and both were won essentially by the English long-bow, a long-range weapon that depended on the attacking forces avoiding the merge. Archers are (generally) sitting ducks if infantry manage to reach them. Indeed Henry's archers at Agincourt were protected by palings (pointed sticks driven into the ground) to prevent fast cavalry from reaching them. It is notable that operating a long bow is very different than operating a sword and requires a totally different mindset. And the tactics used by a force heavy in archers and light in infantry is significantly different than the tactics used by a force with mostly infantry.
In short I believe Henry V and his commanders understood the value of long-range weaponry very well and knew very well how to use that weaponry correctly in a 15th century fight. Perhaps better than 4th Gen fighter guys understand a 5th Gen fight.
Did I get my history right?
Last edited by KenV; 5th Aug 2015 at 14:35.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errrm - the N-156 was conceived from the outset as a low-cost fighter. The trainer just got sold first.
Where do these young fellows learn history?
That bad press didn't come out of nowhere Lonewolf ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accide...he_V-22_Osprey ), and the fact that the media has changed its tune since the V-22 went operational and proved itself shows that it is not being disingenuous but is instead judging the aircraft on its merits, as it should.
I will not further derail this F-35 discussion with V-22 stuff, but the styles and attitudes of some of the press who follow military aircraft acquisition aligns very well with the term disingenuous.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USMC F-35B achieves IOC...
Apologies if this news has already been posted, with the amount of bickering on here these days, things tend to get missed in the melee...
Marines Declare F-35B Operational
-RP
Marines Declare F-35B Operational
-RP
What, the Apache/AH-64D? 
In the year 2015, they all tend to meld into one big stew.
Not saying that makes me happy, but it seems to be the current state of play, and it requires one to be very careful about one's sources.
As Rhino pointed out, Marines declare IOC. What that means may initiate another discussion.
So, if they want a flying gun, call in the Vipers aka AH-1Z (Not the F-16s).
Let's hear it for the unappreciated attack helicopter guys ...
In the year 2015, they all tend to meld into one big stew.
Not saying that makes me happy, but it seems to be the current state of play, and it requires one to be very careful about one's sources. As Rhino pointed out, Marines declare IOC. What that means may initiate another discussion.
"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees," Dunford said in a statement. "VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the
training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
The Marines plan on buying 420 total jets, a mix of 340 B and 80 C models. The first F-35B deployment is scheduled to take place in 2017, with the unit known as VMFA-121 moving to Iwakuni, Japan.
Although the jets will be operational, they are not in their final form. More capability, including the use of the plane's gun, will come down the line with software update 3F, which will drop in 2017.
Let's hear it for the unappreciated attack helicopter guys ...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's whole lot of myth re the longbow.
Effective, yes. Effective as the myth portrays it, no.
Effective, yes. Effective as the myth portrays it, no.
Love how a thread on the F-35 has ended up discussing the longbow!!
Yes, the terrain influenced the outcome tremendously, but that can be viewed as being part of the tactics. The chosen battleground favored the English forces, which were heavily weighted toward archers who become light infantry at the merge, with light infantry having an advantage on a muddy battle field.
Originally Posted by Mel
Speaking as open source press myself Courtney, I think that's a little harsh. As 'open source' implies, we are no more privy to confidential or classified material than anyone else, including yourself. If we've got it dramatically wrong, then that's likely down to others in more informed positions being disingenuous. Not that we don't try to get it right, but without flying the damned thing ourselves we have to take a certain amount on face value.
I did try to be clear and choose my words carefully there. I deliberately said OFTEN and certainly never meant to imply "always". There has been plenty of honest reporting, but the stuff that commonly gets picked up on is the bad news, especially if it is written in a sensationalist fashion.
Certainly no offence intended.