Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 11th Aug 2015, 10:37
  #7341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
Thought this was interesting, given that the see-through cockpit is a much talked about feature of the F-35.

t43562 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2015, 10:57
  #7342 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,394
As I read it, the JROC is required to have performed an Operational Requirements Analysis of the programme. See here. As the IOC for the models is TBD this cannot be concluded, so a waiver is in place.

As an example, from the first diagram in the link above, one requirement is the analysis, relating to the USD(AT&L) referenced is......

"In consultation with the CCMDs and USD(ATL):

Establishing an objective for an overall period of time within which an operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military commitment"
ORAC is online now  
Old 11th Aug 2015, 10:58
  #7343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
They should have given the F-35 contract to Land Rover. They must be good, mine can carry more JDAMs than JSF, until the block three software is ready and they can waive a waiver!
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 07:08
  #7344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 311
Thunder without Lightning


The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program


A rather interesting report at nsnetwork. Maybe it has already been posted but the search couldn't find it.


http://nsnetwork.org/cms/assets/uplo...F-35_FINAL.pdf
On_The_Top_Bunk is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 08:28
  #7345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 759
Different circumstances I know but one wonders whether Barnes Wallis' bouncing bomb would ever have made it off the drawing board if subjected to similarly anachronistic assumptions and raw exposure to the press and poo-pooing armchair experts:
  • High risk strategy.
  • Dependent on unproven technology.
  • Involved use of radical tactics.
  • Dismal track record of development trials.
  • Inadequate historical data.
  • Required expensive airframe modifications.
  • Required extensive and risky crew training.
  • Diverted vital resources (funding, R&D, frontline aircraft, skilled personnel and production facilities) from main effort.
  • Limited (almost one-off) short-term application.
  • Extremely hazardous in operation resulting in losses of entire aircrews.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 08:38
  #7346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Interesting point of view there foddy.
glad rag is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 08:58
  #7347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
Different circumstances I know but one wonders whether Barnes Wallis' bouncing bomb would ever have made it off the drawing board if subjected to similarly anachronistic assumptions and raw exposure to the press and poo-pooing armchair experts:

High risk strategy.
Dependent on unproven technology.
Involved use of radical tactics.
That does seem an unfair comparison. The complaints about the F-35 have happened long long after it got off the drawing board. What was the bouncing bomb timeframe anyhow - 2 years perhaps? How long has the F-35 saga been and how much has the criticism really mattered to it anyhow? It seems to have had solid support.

And if one is going to make comparisons: after all that effort were those radical bouncing tactics copied by anyone? Were they ever used again?

The Tallboys might be a better example.
t43562 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 09:28
  #7348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by t43562
...The Tallboys might be a better example.
I read the linked report in On_The_Top_Bunk's post (#7350) but the phrase that particularly caught my eye was "The High Costs and Limited Benefits of the F-35 Program". It immediately struck a chord in light of historical revisionist controversy concerning the Dambusters' Raid.

I think the concept, development and operational deployment of Barnes Wallis' Tallboy earthquake bomb were less radical than for his Upkeep bouncing bomb but I remain open to persuasion.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 10:39
  #7349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 470
I think the concept, development and operational deployment of Barnes Wallis' Tallboy earthquake bomb were less radical than for his Upkeep bouncing bomb but I remain open to persuasion.
One could see it that way but the thing is that other people wanted tallboys afterwards and they were used again and again and on various targets from ships to sub pens. There are still penetration bombs to this day - not that I really know if they are "successors" to the Tallboy. So possibly it was less radical than the bouncing bombs but much more enduring and more widely useful.

Does that really say anything about the F-35? I don't know. From the outside it doesn't seem like the F-35 has had a hard time with money, only with self-created problems. It is only somewhat special purpose but if it sucks money out of other things then one might end up with war of some unexpected kind for which it is no particular use or at least ill-suited and no money to get something different.
t43562 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 11:24
  #7350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
FodPlod - That's an interesting comparison. I'm not aware of the "revisionism" surrounding Operation Chastise - but even from reading Brickhill it was apparent that a handpicked squadron was effectively annihilated and that the weapon technology was never used again.

More often (in fact, over and over and over again) F-35 supporters like to cite the early criticisms leveled at weapons that turned out to be successful. The favorite example is the F-16, which was zinged early in its career for radar and AAM limitations compared with competitors (F/A-18) and potential adversaries (eg MiG-23).

One big difference is that the criticisms were acknowledged and addressed and corrective action was undertaken - by 1980, the F-16C/APG-68 was well under way, and AMRAAM was a live program with requirements including compatibility with the tip rails of the F-16. Another (more luck than judgment) was that the AIM-9L/M turned out to be much more useful than most people had predicted, and filled the gap until AMRAAM turned up (behind schedule).

From my recollection of talking to GD people back in the 1980s, they felt that the F-16 would have had a much shorter career were it not for the C/D. Israel was the only customer for new A/Bs outside the US and the EPAF four, and the F-16 lost the big Australian and Canadian orders.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 13:01
  #7351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
And if one is going to make comparisons: after all that effort were those radical bouncing tactics copied by anyone? Were they ever used again?
The 5th Army Air Force used a similar bouncing bomb technique called "skip bombing" with great success for bombing ships in the Pacific theater. I understand that Australia and Russia used this technique with great success also. The difference is that the skip bomb tactic used conventional bombs released from conventional bombers, mostly B-25s. But B-17s and A-20s were also used by the 5th. The Aussies and Russians used A-20s and other aircraft.
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 14:03
  #7352 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,394
KenV, that was Highball. Never saw active service in the Pacific.

The Highball incident
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 15:06
  #7353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
KenV is correct - they did use conventional bombs (tho I suspect a lot of people got as low as they could and dropped the bombs early and claimed it was deliberate skip bombing when it worked)

Highball was a British development of Wallis' Upkeep planned principally to hit the Tirpitz by bouncing over the torpedo nets around the ship - it was never used in action
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 15:37
  #7354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 76
Posts: 6,381
Bouncing canon balls off the sea goes back to Nelson's day - apparently made the impact more effective
Wander00 is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 16:34
  #7355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
KenV, that was Highball. Never saw active service in the Pacific.
The Highball incident
No, I'm not talking about Highball. I'm talking about skip bombing against shipping, not dams, and which was performed by the 5th AAF in the Pacific from late 1942 thru 1945. The Battle of the Bismarck Sea in early 1943 for example used skip bombing along with mast height bombing extensively and successfully.
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 16:48
  #7356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
KenV is correct - they did use conventional bombs (tho I suspect a lot of people got as low as they could and dropped the bombs early and claimed it was deliberate skip bombing when it worked)
Skip bombing and mast height bombing are similar and sometimes used together. Mast height bombing was generally done at similar altitudes, but at higher speed (265-275 MPH) than skip bombing. When used together, the first bombs were deliberately released early to skip across the water and strike the sides of the ship, and the following bombs were released later to drop directly onto the ships.

Skip bombing required different fusing than mast height bombing. Skip bombs required delayed fuses and mast height bombs required contact fuses. If a delayed fuse bomb was used for direct bombing against unarmored transports and merchant ships, they would pass through the ship before detonating. If contact fused bombs were used to skip bomb, they would detonate when they first struck the water. So the crews could not "accidentally" do one when they were trying to do the other.
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 17:03
  #7357 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,394


KenV,

Highball was anti-shipping. A smaller ball shaped bomb carried in the UK by the Mosquito.

Same basic principle of a spinning bomb as for the dams, to drive itself downwards, but in the case of Highball it was designed to rotate down to the keel and, on the fuse detecting it had reached the bottom and descent had stopped, to detonate and act in the same way as a torpedo - blast to lift the hull and create a void so that the ship would break its back as it came down again with only support at the bow and stern.
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 18:03
  #7358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Frensham Surrey 51.143734 -0.79448986 SU 84426 38972
Age: 56
Posts: 246
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
KenV, that was Highball. Never saw active service in the Pacific.

The Highball incident
Video of the A-26C accident in your link. Having seen the extent and height of the water splash and bomb bounce in the Mosquito Highball films a low drop such as this was never going to end well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCGpzRzY7fY
Wokkafans is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 18:59
  #7359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
Yikes. Under two seconds from weapon release to water impact. That seems much lower than any of the Lancaster or Mosquito releases. What did they think was going to happen?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2015, 20:22
  #7360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Thought I would dip my toe into the toxic world of writing about the F-35

The F-35B is worth it, but - Think Defence

Last edited by Think Defence; 12th Aug 2015 at 20:55.
Think Defence is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.