F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Rhino power]

In addition to, ORAC's comment about the datalink, what about this quote?

The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it.

So, the GR.4 (and I assume other similar era jets) can't (safely) fly in a 'double digit SAM MEZ', yet the if they're with the F-35, suddenly they become as invulnerable as the F-35, how? How does the F-35 create this 'wormhole'? Or am I misunderstanding the quote?

-RP

[Rhino power]

And if folks think some of the comments on the many preceding pages of this thread are eyebrow raising, have a look at this one, lifted from another forum where the 'discussion' had turned to the possibility of a split F-35A/B buy for the RAF/RN...

Maybe they can run B's without the tilt fan, clutch, and whatnot to considerably extend the range when not operated from a carrier. One common version, but when unnecessary don't carry the extra load.

-RP

[Bigpants]

Replacement?

How Russia?s S-400 makes the F-35 obsolete | Russia & India Report

Since the title is F35 cancelled then what, how about we buy a bunch of S400 missiles and finally make Duncan Sandys Paper come true?

Apparently Mr Putin has ordered these to be deployed in Syria, can't imagine what he would want to shoot down....

[Tourist]

Well, I for one am convinced. That was a well written and unbiased article.

[Kitbag]

Well, I for one am convinced. That was a well written and unbiased article.

This thread needs a sarcasm button

[Bigpants]

Buttons

Perhaps an Irony button as well?

[ORAC]

[John Farley]

Some posters seem to forget that flying any Harriers ASAP from our QE class carriers will help shake down the ship and crew while they wait for their own jets.

[alfred_the_great]

Originally Posted by John Farley

Some posters seem to forget that flying any Harriers ASAP from our QE class carriers will help shake down the ship and crew while they wait for their own jets.

Sweet - sail for the first time and immediately embark jets. No problems whatsoever.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Royalistflyer

I served during the 1960s at the height of the Cold War. I also know my history. The Americans - after British scientists during the War had handed over all their nuclear research and worked on the Manhattan Project - subsequently refused to share their atomic technology with us. British politicians of both parties agreed that we must develop our own atomic weapons and subsequently thermonuclear weapons. By this time the Americans agreed to supply us with some weapons the B2b, which we accepted, only to find that the design was defective and had to be replaced. This drove us to a policy of not relying on their technology.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and OBTW is fifty years ago. First of all, clue, is nuclear issues versus conventional issues.

If I had your crap for brains attitude, Royalistflyer, I'd have been shooting at Japanese when I was deployed there in the late 80s early 90's, because fifty years prior we were at war. I'd also have been shooting at Italians and Germans when I worked in NATO, because fifty years prior we were at war with them.

Fortunately for allied relations with those nations, I am not an idiot, and neither are the defense staffs of our two nations. As to putting up with fools on the British Defense staff, I'll let Admiral Ernest King have the last word on that. By the way, he's dead, and has nothing more to say about it.

Year is 2015. Catch up to the now.

[glad rag]

Just as a matter of interest, can the airframe clean the wings once the underwing stores are expended?

[LowObservable]

GR - The F-22 can drop its pylons with its tanks. I don't know whether the F-35 can release its weapon pylons, but there would be less reason to do so since underwing fuel is relatively unimportant. There's only so much value in "cleaning up" after carrying out an attack in non-VLO mode.

[John Farley]

Alfred

I don’t think I mentioned doing it when sailing for the first time and please be assured I quite realise the crew will have plenty of non-aviation matters to sort out for quite a few trips to put it mildly. However if (big if) PR needs arise then flying a USMC/Italian Navy/Spanish or Indian Navy Harrier to and from the deck would not be a problem. All that would be needed for safe operation would be a common r/t frequency and a bit of fire cover.

Indeed the first ship I ever flew from (the USN La Salle in May 1968) was at the time anchored in the bay at USN Norfolk. She had some sailors on board accepting the ship before it entered service and they were able to offer r/t and fire cover. The sortie started from a road in the base and was for the benefit of a bunch of Admirals watching from the flight deck of a nearby carrier so that they could see how easy it was to operate a jet from a ship’s helo platform – especially a jet designed to not need any yellow gear. Indeed I even shut it down for a while on the deck to emphasise that point plus it allowed a couple of my chaps to attach some external stores so that I could carry something during the subsequent post VTO smash about for the Admirals to watch.

Subsequently I flew from over a dozen different ships and learned something new each time – just as I imagine Harrier visitors to the QE would from such training sorties.

JF

[Royalistflyer]

Perhaps the question that we should be asking isn't if the F35 was cancelled - but rather have we at long last reached the Duncan Sandys point? Have we reached a point where the F35 (assuming it performs as the Americans claim it eventually will) cannot survive in a S400 dominated environment? If we have, then what? It might be useful against a few terrorists with manpads, but does it protect our home against attack?
Along that line of thinking have we just built two very large expensive targets for the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles? All that I see is that intercepting these two-speed missiles is questionable at this point. Anent that last point does anyone know if the two-speed missiles can vary the point at which they increase speed?

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by Easy Street

Absolutely. I am stunned at the lack of understanding that some display on here! Modern MRAAMs gain quantum leaps in performance with increased launch altitude, irrespective of the altitude of the target.

I've been trying to explain that for years here.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Royalistflyer

Perhaps the question that we should be asking isn't if the F35 was cancelled - but rather have we at long last reached the Duncan Sandys point? Have we reached a point where the F35 (assuming it performs as the Americans claim it eventually will) cannot survive in a S400 dominated environment? If we have, then what? It might be useful against a few terrorists with manpads, but does it protect our home against attack?
Along that line of thinking have we just built two very large expensive targets for the latest supersonic anti-ship missiles? All that I see is that intercepting these two-speed missiles is questionable at this point. Anent that last point does anyone know if the two-speed missiles can vary the point at which they increase speed?

This problem has been raised for as long as I've had an interest in military hardware: for all the money that you spend on these expensive munitions and systems, what does it do? (Back in the 60's and 70's a prime example was M-16 versus AK-47). See also the very expensive mounted knights versus Pike squares or the occasional collection of English Longbow. At some point, there is a counter to your best weapon. (Rock, paper, scissors, round and round we go).

The "carrier as floating target fir missiles" fear has been with us since the 70's. Funny old thing, Aegis and Phoenix were developed with that in mind, in part, and the carriers are still with us. (Should it be? Good question, depends on what you want your navy to do for you, and who will let you base your Air Force where ...)

I don't care who is buying the F-35, that thing's expensive as all get out, per copy, so like the Abrams Tank, the Carrier, or a knight in full plate armor, does its capability give you value for you money or are you just trying to look good with newer kit that has new features?

With the F-35, we don't know yet.

The program's late, and that alone has anyone interested in the program on edge. Like the B-2, it may arrive a generation too late for the fight that it was bought for.

[alfred_the_great]

Originally Posted by John Farley

Alfred

I don’t think I mentioned doing it when sailing for the first time and please be assured I quite realise the crew will have plenty of non-aviation matters to sort out for quite a few trips to put it mildly. However if (big if) PR needs arise then flying a USMC/Italian Navy/Spanish or Indian Navy Harrier to and from the deck would not be a problem. All that would be needed for safe operation would be a common r/t frequency and a bit of fire cover.

Indeed the first ship I ever flew from (the USN La Salle in May 1968) was at the time anchored in the bay at USN Norfolk. She had some sailors on board accepting the ship before it entered service and they were able to offer r/t and fire cover. The sortie started from a road in the base and was for the benefit of a bunch of Admirals watching from the flight deck of a nearby carrier so that they could see how easy it was to operate a jet from a ship’s helo platform – especially a jet designed to not need any yellow gear. Indeed I even shut it down for a while on the deck to emphasise that point plus it allowed a couple of my chaps to attach some external stores so that I could carry something during the subsequent post VTO smash about for the Admirals to watch.

Subsequently I flew from over a dozen different ships and learned something new each time – just as I imagine Harrier visitors to the QE would from such training sorties.

JF

Well, for a start, the Flight Safety regime that was in force in the 60s is very different to the one we have today. I'm not sure why we'd waste time and effort on establishing SHOLs for any version of Harrier before we established them for the F-35. Neither can you simply land on an aircraft without a fully worked up Ship, and Flight Deck crew - why would you start that process with a VSTOL aircraft that won't be the main user of the deck when you could use RW and then F-35? Might it be, and give me some latitude here, that the trials and testing programme that has been established might be a relatively efficient way of getting F-35 onto the deck in a reasonable time, and dicking around with that timeline would have disproportionate effect?

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by alfred_the_great

Well, for a start, the Flight Safety regime that was in force in the 60s is very different to the one we have today. I'm not sure why we'd waste time and effort on establishing SHOLs for any version of Harrier before we established them for the F-35. Neither can you simply land on an aircraft without a fully worked up Ship, and Flight Deck crew - why would you start that process with a VSTOL aircraft that won't be the main user of the deck when you could use RW and then F-35? Might it be, and give me some latitude here, that the trials and testing programme that has been established might be a relatively efficient way of getting F-35 onto the deck in a reasonable time, and dicking around with that timeline would have disproportionate effect?

Just read what actually transpired during the USMC IOC and wonder!!

[Bevo]

No low signature ground attack fighter is going to penetrate a modern IADS without ECM support. This was the case during the Gulf war and the Bosnian conflict. Hence the need for airborne jamming assets.

[a1bill]

Yet as per O’Bryan's article, a requirement CONOP for the F-35 is to penetrate a modern IADS without offboard ECM support.