F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thought does go through my mind that perhaps there is a danger of expecting the opposition to do as we would do?
Are the Chinese going to be terribly bothered if there is a degree of friendly collateral damage when they take out a US carrier?
Are the Chinese going to be terribly bothered if there is a degree of friendly collateral damage when they take out a US carrier?
Ken's right that commercial or wide-area satellites aren't the complete answer, but in conjunction with the Automatic Identification System they are a big contributor to a common operational picture.
By the way, there's been serious discussion of a geostationary imaging satellite with up to 10 m resolution:
http://www.congrexprojects.com/custo..._GeoOculus.pdf
Not so long ago - even in the 1990s - the oceans were a big black hole with a few moving spotlights of airborne radar and the occasional swath of a radar sat (of which there were very few). No longer.
By the way, there's been serious discussion of a geostationary imaging satellite with up to 10 m resolution:
http://www.congrexprojects.com/custo..._GeoOculus.pdf
Not so long ago - even in the 1990s - the oceans were a big black hole with a few moving spotlights of airborne radar and the occasional swath of a radar sat (of which there were very few). No longer.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thought does go through my mind that perhaps there is a danger of expecting the opposition to do as we would do?
Are the Chinese going to be terribly bothered if there is a degree of friendly collateral damage when they take out a US carrier?
Are the Chinese going to be terribly bothered if there is a degree of friendly collateral damage when they take out a US carrier?
Another consideration is the reaction of American forces in the region if the carrier dodges the missile, but the missile sinks a ship friendly to America, like Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, S Korea, etc etc. Will the Americans be "terribly bothered" and its forces react in some hostile manner? Will America's allies in the region, like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, etc join America in a forceful military response to China's provocative action? I believe these considerations should be included in the equation. But again I could be wrong and welcome other viewpoints.
To my mind, this is a very high risk operation with very VERY high stakes. Even assuming China used ASBMs to successfully sink all of the American carriers, America retains the ability to visit a lot of hurt on China using several other non-nuclear weapon systems not dependent on carriers. And that does not include America's allies in the region. So to my mind this is about a lot more than the ability to sink CVNs using ASBMs. But I could be wrong and I'm open to have my mind changed.
Last edited by KenV; 25th Feb 2016 at 16:31. Reason: Extensively reworded to "soften" the tone of the post
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me but I do note a degree of hubris in your post(s).
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...commercial or wide-area satellites aren't the complete answer, but in conjunction with the Automatic Identification System they are a big contributor to a common operational picture.
I believe the consequences of targeting a CVN with a ballistic missile and getting it wrong will carry far heavier consequences than the MH17 event. And the consequences of getting it right and damaging or sinking the CVN would be devastating. So even assuming the ability to sink a carrier with a ballistic missile exists, what is the real utility of that ability if the consequences of using it are devastating? I welcome disagreeing viewpoints.
The point is that any threat has to be respected and (hopefully) countered. Until recently ship drivers did not have to consider such a threat - now they do. Being able to 'worry' a USN carrier from a strategic distance is quite an achievement.
Countering such a threat may involve developing aircraft that have a greater range; so we loop back to the F-35 discussion….
Countering such a threat may involve developing aircraft that have a greater range; so we loop back to the F-35 discussion….
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that any threat has to be respected and (hopefully) countered. Until recently ship drivers did not have to consider such a threat - now they do. Being able to 'worry' a USN carrier from a strategic distance is quite an achievement.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Oh dear, oh dear.......
Submission to the Australian Defence Committee JSF inquiry.
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore....9&subId=409097
Dear Chairman and Committee Members,
AUSTRALIA’S TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark.
In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft.
In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England.
To make the simulations as realistic a as possible, we participated with operational pilots.
On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries.
We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.
We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command.
Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed.
With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role.
I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter.
Yours Sincerely,
Anker Steen Sørensen
Denmark
Submission to the Australian Defence Committee JSF inquiry.
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore....9&subId=409097
Dear Chairman and Committee Members,
AUSTRALIA’S TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark.
In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft.
In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England.
To make the simulations as realistic a as possible, we participated with operational pilots.
On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries.
We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.
We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command.
Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed.
With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role.
I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter.
Yours Sincerely,
Anker Steen Sørensen
Denmark
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re : Sørensen..hat tip to hornetfinn on f-16
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Program and politics
Some other interesting finds about this Anker Steen Sørensen:
?F-35 er det eneste logiske valg? «
Anker Steen Sørensen siger:
25. november 2014 kl. 17:03
Jeg er Service provider for Eurofighter – bare så I ved det. Jeg deltog også i konferencen.
Translation:
I'm Service provider for the Eurofighter - just so you know. I also participated in the conference.
So I dug further:
Eksperter: Simulator er ikke som en testflyvning | Nyheder | DR
Google-Translations:
But it is a problem that the Danish pilots have not tested the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact, believe Anker Sørensen, a former squadron leader and head of the operations department for Skrydstrup. He has flown F-16 for 16 years, and now works as a consultant for the competitor to JSF, Eurofighter.
Anker Sørensen after his 40 years in the Army now a consultant for the Eurofighter.
So, now we know what his motivation for the writing really is... Maybe somebody should make this info known to Australians...
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Program and politics
Some other interesting finds about this Anker Steen Sørensen:
?F-35 er det eneste logiske valg? «
Anker Steen Sørensen siger:
25. november 2014 kl. 17:03
Jeg er Service provider for Eurofighter – bare så I ved det. Jeg deltog også i konferencen.
Translation:
I'm Service provider for the Eurofighter - just so you know. I also participated in the conference.
So I dug further:
Eksperter: Simulator er ikke som en testflyvning | Nyheder | DR
Google-Translations:
But it is a problem that the Danish pilots have not tested the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact, believe Anker Sørensen, a former squadron leader and head of the operations department for Skrydstrup. He has flown F-16 for 16 years, and now works as a consultant for the competitor to JSF, Eurofighter.
Anker Sørensen after his 40 years in the Army now a consultant for the Eurofighter.
So, now we know what his motivation for the writing really is... Maybe somebody should make this info known to Australians...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jeez, these submissions need trawling through in detail.
Submissions ? Parliament of Australia
For example......
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore....1&subId=407329
"........However, most important pronouncement was the December 2014 report on VSIM by the Director of O T&E. ―It confirmed that in 2014 a review of VSIM eventually led to cancellation of the contract verification portion of Block 2B VSim planned usage. About one-third of the validation evidence for Block 2B VSim was reviewed by the developmental and operational test stakeholders before the contractual use of VSim for Block 2B was cancelled.
This review confirmed that additional time was needed before VSim V&V could potentially meet expectations. Collaborative replanning of Block 2B activities is not complete, but V&V reviews to support operational testing needs are now planned for early 2015, with accreditation of VSim for tactics development and other uses expected in October 2015.
The contractor has increased resources on VSim V&V teams, and the quality of the V&V products is increasing. However, the rate of completing validation points (a comparison of VSim model performance to aircraft hardware performance under similar test conditions using data from flight test, avionics test bed, or labs), has been much slower than planned. This makes completing the validation reports, which analyze the points with respect to intended use, at risk to support even the reduced accreditation requirements for Block 2B. Additional resources may be required to complete the significant task of validating the complex federation of models in VSim in time for Block 3F IOT&E.‖
In summary, all the JSF project simulation results gathered over the last 10 years or so have no validity at all. They only represent parts of a virtual F-35 in a virtual world (Lockheed Martin land) where the laws of physics, advanced threats and systems are ignored and the virtual F-35 has capabilities that do not exist outside of the simulation.
Right now it is not only incomplete in terms of contemporary and future threats as well as models for the combat scenarios but also inaccurate for the JSF performance itself resulting in an application that is useless for its intended purpose......."
Submissions ? Parliament of Australia
For example......
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore....1&subId=407329
"........However, most important pronouncement was the December 2014 report on VSIM by the Director of O T&E. ―It confirmed that in 2014 a review of VSIM eventually led to cancellation of the contract verification portion of Block 2B VSim planned usage. About one-third of the validation evidence for Block 2B VSim was reviewed by the developmental and operational test stakeholders before the contractual use of VSim for Block 2B was cancelled.
This review confirmed that additional time was needed before VSim V&V could potentially meet expectations. Collaborative replanning of Block 2B activities is not complete, but V&V reviews to support operational testing needs are now planned for early 2015, with accreditation of VSim for tactics development and other uses expected in October 2015.
The contractor has increased resources on VSim V&V teams, and the quality of the V&V products is increasing. However, the rate of completing validation points (a comparison of VSim model performance to aircraft hardware performance under similar test conditions using data from flight test, avionics test bed, or labs), has been much slower than planned. This makes completing the validation reports, which analyze the points with respect to intended use, at risk to support even the reduced accreditation requirements for Block 2B. Additional resources may be required to complete the significant task of validating the complex federation of models in VSim in time for Block 3F IOT&E.‖
In summary, all the JSF project simulation results gathered over the last 10 years or so have no validity at all. They only represent parts of a virtual F-35 in a virtual world (Lockheed Martin land) where the laws of physics, advanced threats and systems are ignored and the virtual F-35 has capabilities that do not exist outside of the simulation.
Right now it is not only incomplete in terms of contemporary and future threats as well as models for the combat scenarios but also inaccurate for the JSF performance itself resulting in an application that is useless for its intended purpose......."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
White Paper commits to urgent $30b spend over ten years
"........Some of the announcements include $30 billion being spent over the next ten years with the percentage of GDP expenditure on Defence to increase to 2 per cent by 2020-21. The government has committed to a continuous rolling acquisition program for 12 submarines and new previously unforeseen acquisitions and plans such as a review process to replace the last 25 F-35s planned for acquisition with a sixth generation fighter that will be an option in the late 2020s."......
"........Some of the announcements include $30 billion being spent over the next ten years with the percentage of GDP expenditure on Defence to increase to 2 per cent by 2020-21. The government has committed to a continuous rolling acquisition program for 12 submarines and new previously unforeseen acquisitions and plans such as a review process to replace the last 25 F-35s planned for acquisition with a sixth generation fighter that will be an option in the late 2020s."......
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
price and mills are the repsim boys that had their company delisted. a part of the apa clown club.
yep we are getting 70 odd f-35 and looking at the other 25 of the 100 late 2020. a 6th gen to replace the shornets late 2020 would also be on the cards
when are you putting up bacon's submission? That's a hoot
yep we are getting 70 odd f-35 and looking at the other 25 of the 100 late 2020. a 6th gen to replace the shornets late 2020 would also be on the cards
when are you putting up bacon's submission? That's a hoot
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A constant stream of ad hominem attacks does not constitute a rebuttal, in fact it emphasises the strength of their attacks and the weakness of the defence.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is nothing to attack, clueless guys pi**ing into the wind, none have even a basic clearance to the current f-35.
just backgrounding who's who, TBH I think it refelects more on the person posting them, as some sort of 2nd coming.
just backgrounding who's who, TBH I think it refelects more on the person posting them, as some sort of 2nd coming.
Last edited by a1bill; 26th Feb 2016 at 08:06.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What they want to do is put a production F35 up against say a legacy F15 and let us see what it can really do...there must be some F15A's in storage someplace..pity there out of F4 drones
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rhino that's interesting news I thought they had all been "used up"...
In case you misinterpreted my posting style I was "hamming things up"
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
gr
In case you misinterpreted my posting style I was "hamming things up"
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
gr
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No confusion, gr, I got the gist of your post! 
I just wanted to clarify that the QF-4's are still soldiering on, for a short while longer at least anyway...
-RP
I just wanted to clarify that the QF-4's are still soldiering on, for a short while longer at least anyway...-RP