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 12th Feb 2016, 14:42
  #8561 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
Evolution does not imply improvement, merely change. T-Rex evolved into the chicken....and the dodo.....
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 17:26
  #8562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ken V sorry but I won't have YOU lecturing anyone about Tornado (F3)

To recap it was an interceptorwhose role was to prevent Soviet bombers and missiles, many of which were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, from reaching the shores of the UK.

To do this it utilised an air intercept radar with air to air missiles as the primary weapons with a 27mm Mauser cannon as a weapon of last resort.

If you are really interested, try reading David Gledhill's book "Tornado F3 in focus".

It is quite interesting indeed looking at the aircraft as a complete weapons system. ..available for kindle etc from Amazon...

Last edited by glad rag; 12th Feb 2016 at 18:03.
glad rag is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 18:26
  #8563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ken V sorry but I won't have YOU lecturing anyone about Tornado (F3)
To recap it was an interceptorwhose role was to prevent Soviet bombers and missiles, many of which were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, from reaching the shores of the UK.
To do this it utilised an air intercept radar with air to air missiles as the primary weapons with a 27mm Mauser cannon as a weapon of last resort.
If you are really interested, try reading David Gledhill's book "Tornado F3 in focus".
It is quite interesting indeed looking at the aircraft as a complete weapons system. ..available for kindle etc from Amazon...
We're in violent agreement. It was a great interceptor and a remarkable "complete weapons system," but never a real fighter and certainly not an air superiority fighter. The Ardvaark and Corsair II were equally remarkable in many ways. But neither were fighters, much less air superiority fighters. Interestingly, the A-4 was officially a fighter in a number of air forces. But was it really a fighter? It certainly was agile. Although some corners of its envelope were really scary ragged. It could depart in some nasty ways, which made it difficult to really fly it to its full capability.
KenV is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 19:10
  #8564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
That's the whole point, Ken. The F3 was never slated as a fighter, it was an interceptor. The difference being modern usage of the term "fighter" rather than the traditional means a distinction between an aircraft that does ground attack from one that does air to air. That said, we never referred to the F-3 as a fighter. But the key to air superiority is in its definition.

A dominance in the air power of one side's air forces over the other side's during a military campaign. It is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force."

You don't have to be a fighter to achieve air superiority. We referred to our job in the F-3 as air defence.

The modern term "air superiority fighter" was coined as a means of describing the claimed effectiveness of an aircraft in achieving that state. When that wasn't enough to make your jet stand out from the crowd, even better terms were invented - "air supremacy" and "air dominance". All of which actually mean the same thing in military terms.

The A-4 was used as an air defence aircraft, but it wasn't really what it was designed for and it didn't have the kit or the punch to do it. Strangely the RAN used the G model for their air defence of the fleet armed with a couple of early AIM9s. I'm sure they thought it was the way forward.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 19:48
  #8565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This was on the front page of the Pompey News today would expect national pickup over the weekend in some form. Adm West is getting fired up:
Britain?s new aircraft carriers could go to war ? without any jets - Portsmouth News

Ex-navy boss fears future flagships could be left vulnerable
THEY are Britain’s biggest warships ever built but now a former head of the Royal Navy has claimed the UK’s new £6bn aircraft carriers could go to war – without any fighter-bombers.
Speaking exclusively to The News, Admiral Lord Alan West said the new 65,000-tonnes Queen Elizabeth-class behemoths could deploy without any of its F-35B Lightning II jets.
It comes amid claims that RAF chiefs were in dispute with navy top brass over who would have ultimate control of the new state-of-the-art fighter jets for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – which will be based in Portsmouth – while on operations at sea.
Former First Sea Lord, Lord West, has made repeated calls on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to clarify the situation – pleas which he says have not been answered sufficiently.
The Labour peer now fears Britain’s future flagships could be left vulnerable.
‘The prime minister and the government have decided, quite rightly, that we run both aircraft carriers together and that they are crucial to the strategic security of the nation,’ he said.
The prime minister would be furious if the carrier went to sea and did not have an air wing
Admiral Lord Alan West, former First Sea Lord
‘But to run them effectively, without embarking air wings with them, makes a mockery of all the investment into the new carriers. It’s a nonsense.’
The government announced in last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that 138 F-35Bs would be bought, as part of a £178bn defence spending pledge for the next decade.
At least 24 of these are earmarked for the carriers, the first of which – HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is capable of carrying up to 40 aircraft – will arrive in Portsmouth next year.
However, Lord West claims the RAF sees the jets as assets ‘they can deploy from an air base’ and were reluctant to send them to carriers.
‘There is a struggle and tension at the moment because the RAF would like to have them (the jets) at an air base in East Anglia and not on an aircraft carrier,’ Lord West explained.
‘They don’t understand carrier operations at all. If you don’t embark an air wing you make them vulnerable.
‘It’s a huge error not to deploy a carrier without an air wing.’
He added: ‘I honestly don’t think the prime minister understands that this is what people at the MoD are trying to do.
‘He would be furious if the carrier went to sea and did not have an air wing.’
Retired Commander Graham Edmonds is the vice-chairman of campaign group UK National Defence Association, based in Portsmouth.
He said the problem stemmed from who would have command and control of the jets during overseas operations.
He argued short detachments by the RAF on ships ‘did not work’ and said this was a ‘divisive issue between dark and light blue’ – the navy and air force.
He said: ‘There’s no point in an aircraft carrier without planes.’
An MoD spokeswoman did not confirm if the carriers would be deployed without planes.
But she added: ‘The SDSR confirmed we will be able to embark up to 24 F-35B Lightning II aircraft in the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, by 2023, delivering a carrier strike capability second only to the United States.
‘When deployed in the carrier strike or Littoral Manoeuvre role, the composition and size of the embarked air group will be tailored to meet the required task – there is no “standard deployment”.’
Portsmouth South MP Flick Drummond said she was confident any issues between the forces would be ironed out.
She said: ‘Every section of the armed forces wants to protect their own but we have been moving towards all forces working more closely together.
‘So I don’t think its a serious issue. They have just got to work out how it’s going to work effectively.’
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 20:00
  #8566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
He said the problem stemmed from who would have command and control of the jets during overseas operations.

He argued short detachments by the RAF on ships ‘did not work’ and said this was a ‘divisive issue between dark and light blue’ – the navy and air force.
He said: ‘There’s no point in an aircraft carrier without planes.’
The whole point of a capital ship is that the Admiral goes on board and takes command of the task force.

Even Sharky, or whatever he's now calling himself, didn't mind having RAF pilots when he needed them.

As for a carrier without "planes" (OK, a "boat" without aircraft), they've been telling us for years that they're not just floating runways. Seems Admiral West disagrees.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 20:03
  #8567 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
Bat**** crazy....

When the entire UK FJ force is down to about a dozen or less Sqns, they go where they are needed - whether Norfolk, Afghanistan or the Falklands.

There will be occasions where the carriers need a rotary wing, or where the USMC can provide an F-35 component, but the concept that the carrier needs a permanent deployed force to defend/justify itself even when there is no threat and higher priority tasks makes no sense.

The concept is that of the self-licking lollipop - better to scrap the carriers and make usable razor blades.......
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 20:25
  #8568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ORAC,

Not sure if there was an element of humour in your post there, but there is quite a noticeable undercurrent in the MOD these days, even amongst the Dark Blue in private, wondering how much they really need them. That surprised me.

Several of the RN thinkers don't see them setting off round the world on six or twelve month cruises anymore and they don't see them doing defence of the British Isles. They know they weren't missed much in the last few international skirmishes and are thinking very hard how they are going to man them.

I think I find that more sad than they do.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 21:18
  #8569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 56
Posts: 1,060
Received 15 Likes on 10 Posts
A1bill I wonder why Boeing didn't put it (SuperHornet) as its FX design....
A Super Hornet decendant would never have been able meet the FX design and specification requirements. Remember you needed three distinct version with first day of war stealth, internal weapons carriage, one version that could do STOVL, and a host of other things. SH has the Wrong type, number and location of engines to meet STOVL, wrong shape, fuselage too small for fuel and weapons, etc etc....
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 21:25
  #8570 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
Slightly tongue in cheek - but.....

You have a carrier, which needs an air wing to defend it, and subs and AD Frigates to defend it - plus all the support logistic ships. Then they have to do a lot of constant work/exercise to remain proficient.

Now a few years ago we could afford that - but now we struggle to deploy 6 jets inside Europe and have a FJ force in the handful - I mean, get realistic. Is it really best way of employing our assets?

I said many years ago that the RN was crazy going for the carriers, look at my history here - the RN was far, far better looking at the deployed frigate roles such as Far East/Med/Caribbean stations and support for SF roles rather than putting all the eggs in one basket.

Last edited by ORAC; 12th Feb 2016 at 22:32.
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 22:19
  #8571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought we were all purple nowadays?

You wonder why the RN thinks we can't trust the RAF, and yet here there is the sudden resurgence of the "carriers are pointless" meme.



Mach, re your b@llocks about the RN in private thinking that the carriers are a bad idea.

Utter cr@p.
That is just scurrilous invention cleverly disguised by saying that nobody will admit it publicly.

I can play that game too.

Several RAF officers have agreed with me privately that the RAF should be disbanded as a waste of space.

See? Easy isn't it?
Tourist is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 22:35
  #8572 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
You wonder why the RN thinks we can't trust the RAF, and yet here there is the sudden resurgence of the "carriers are pointless" meme.
Au contraire, it's the retired navy admirals doing the power/aircraft grab. It would seem you have the wrong end if the stick....

‘They don’t understand carrier operations at all. If you don’t embark an air wing you make them vulnerable. It’s a huge error not to deploy a carrier without an air wing.’

He added: ‘I honestly don’t think the prime minister understands that this is what people at the MoD are trying to do.He would be furious if the carrier went to sea and did not have an air wing.’
ORAC is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 22:45
  #8573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tourist,

Sorry, didn't intend to provoke such an angry response. But I'm equally sorry to report that I am not making anything up; why would I? I have no axe to grind in this debate. Don't get me wrong, I think they are happy that they're getting them and I certainly didn't say they think they're a bad idea. Those were your angry words, not mine. I also did not say what the "RN thinks".

The guys are more questioning how they're going to be used.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 00:42
  #8574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sandiego,
A Super Hornet decendant would never have been able meet the FX design and specification requirements.
Looks like the F-35 has this problem as well...

SH has the Wrong type, number and location of engines to meet STOVL, wrong shape, fuselage too small for fuel and weapons, etc etc....
Other than the number of engines, you are describing the current F-35B...

This is what happens when one airframe is developed to serve three different missions and three different services, a super star never results...What were they thinking given a previous experience with only two services?
Turbine D is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 01:45
  #8575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So you wonder why there are organizations in the US Department of Defense like the DOT&E, which is issuing yearly reports on the F-35 program among others? Part of it is to avoid situations like this from happening years later:

Afghan Air | Full Measure
Turbine D is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 06:50
  #8576 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
So you wonder why there are organizations in the US Department of Defense like the DOT&E, which is issuing yearly reports on the F-35 program among others? Part of it is to avoid situations like this from happening years later
LOL.......

GAO Report to Senate Investigation into the F-111 Program,
ORAC is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 07:57
  #8577 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,231
Received 1,501 Likes on 679 Posts
Hmmm, that thing about Israel being so keen on the F-35 that Ken keeps harping on about........

carolinglick | The IAF?s Achilles? Heel

"This week Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told government ministers that he may wait for the next US president before signing a new military assistance deal with America. Israel’s current military assistance package is set to expire in 2018 and the new package is supposed to include supplemental aid to compensate Israel for President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. But to date, the administration has rejected Israel’s requests for additional systems it could use to defend against Iran attacks.

Last October, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon asked US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to provide Israel with a new squadron of F-15s that Israel would outfit with its own electronics systems. Carter reportedly rejected that request as well as one for bunker buster bombs.

Carter instead insisted that Israel use the supplemental aid to purchase more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, US-made missile defense systems, and the Osprey V-22 helicopter, which Ya’alon didn’t want.

The fact that the administration wants Israel to buy more F-35s instead of F-15s is alarming both for what it tells us about America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge against Iran and for what it tells us about the F-35, which is set to become the IAF’s next generation combat fighter."............
ORAC is online now  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 08:00
  #8578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with ORAC. Times have changed and we don't have enough aircraft to have a permanently embarked Air Wing on either (or both) QECs. The Admiral knows this, but his accusations are false. The RAF is fully committed to Carrier Strike and certainly does 'understand' them. We haven't had large carriers for many many years, and certainly haven't deployed a fixed-wing embarked element on ops for a long time either. Therefore, I'm sad to say that there is also large proportion of the RN now that don't understand what to do with them, and maybe that was ORAC's point. That said, for the past few years a lot of sailors and WAFUs have been wisely keeping their skills up on big US carriers to prepare for QEC and F-35. A good plan IMHO.

I just wish that certain elements of the Services would stop peddling old myths to de-rail what is currently a very good plan to make both capabilities work together. These aircraft aren't just bought for the carriers. At least an air threat to the carrier strike group can be mitigated by T45, yet nobody has really acknowledged the real gorilla in the room - the sub-surface threat.

As always, if it doesn't support the rather tiresome old narrative to achieve full control, it doesn't grab headlines. Headlines which are akin to opening 5+ year-old sore wounds. Plans and relationships have moved forward considerably since then yet certain people seem intent on pushing BS up to their retired VSO "connections" in the hope of being taken seriously. That's scurrilous.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 08:54
  #8579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
We're in violent agreement. It was a great interceptor and a remarkable "complete weapons system," but never a real fighter and certainly not an air superiority fighter. The Ardvaark and Corsair II were equally remarkable in many ways. But neither were fighters, much less air superiority fighters. Interestingly, the A-4 was officially a fighter in a number of air forces. But was it really a fighter? It certainly was agile. Although some corners of its envelope were really scary ragged. It could depart in some nasty ways, which made it difficult to really fly it to its full capability.
Ken, if you can, get of your pinto and start thinking what people are trying (however obliquely) to tell you.

You might even learn something about the so called US 4th/5th gen debate lol.
glad rag is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2016, 08:57
  #8580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
[QUOTE] These aircraft aren't just bought for the carriers.[ /QUOTE]

Time will tell.

Perhaps some forward thinking AM might wake up and gift the entire shooting match to the RN.

The RN can pay for them, for their maintenance and operation from their wedge of the defence budget. ..

If that isn't the case (and we know the RN could never do it by itself) then perhaps it us time for some dark blue to stfu

Last edited by glad rag; 13th Feb 2016 at 09:07. Reason: reality check
glad rag is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.