F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"totally unproven"? By what definition? No, it has little to no in-service experience. But testing has proven that the airplane has very impressive capabilities. Yes it still needs more testing. Yes, the software is still in a fairly early stage of development. But what is new or different there? It took decades to fully develop the Tornado and its systems. And the Typhoon, although a "mature" aircraft, still needs years of testing and software/hardware updates to give it a credible air-to-ground capability. It's getting there, but that capability is most certainly not yet "proven".
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines, JTO,
The aeroplane was designed to be a medium level bomber with some capability in other areas. Why would it need to dogfight with 10 AMRAAMs, a really spammed up datalink & a huge radar?
The aeroplane was designed to be a medium level bomber with some capability in other areas. Why would it need to dogfight with 10 AMRAAMs, a really spammed up datalink & a huge radar?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onedesign,
I hope I can help, but I have to start by looking at your premise. The F-35 wasn't really designed as a 'medium level bomber with some capabilities in other areas'. It was designed against a set of requirements that were framed to allow it to replace a large number of legacy platforms, including what some call 'attack' aircraft, 'fighters' and possibly 'bombers'. To try to answer your points:
The 10 AMRAAM fit is, in my own view, very unlikely ever to be used, but is a standard USN requirement that was applied to Hornet for defending the fleet against massed air attacks. Knowing the aircraft, it would be very capable in this role, especially given its very capable radar and weapons system. But I still think its' very unlikely to be used in anger.
The radar isn't 'huge' - but it is very capable. It's an AESA design with some fairly powerful processing power on tap.
Data links are used for all sorts of reasons, including carrying out attacks on surface targets. They're not just for fighters. The MADL datalink is a very capable system, but the requirement was for F-35s to communicate with each other, as the F-35 is the first platform with this link. It's probable that MADL might find its way on to other platforms.
Hope this helps, please PM me if there's anything else I might be able to help you with.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
I hope I can help, but I have to start by looking at your premise. The F-35 wasn't really designed as a 'medium level bomber with some capabilities in other areas'. It was designed against a set of requirements that were framed to allow it to replace a large number of legacy platforms, including what some call 'attack' aircraft, 'fighters' and possibly 'bombers'. To try to answer your points:
The 10 AMRAAM fit is, in my own view, very unlikely ever to be used, but is a standard USN requirement that was applied to Hornet for defending the fleet against massed air attacks. Knowing the aircraft, it would be very capable in this role, especially given its very capable radar and weapons system. But I still think its' very unlikely to be used in anger.
The radar isn't 'huge' - but it is very capable. It's an AESA design with some fairly powerful processing power on tap.
Data links are used for all sorts of reasons, including carrying out attacks on surface targets. They're not just for fighters. The MADL datalink is a very capable system, but the requirement was for F-35s to communicate with each other, as the F-35 is the first platform with this link. It's probable that MADL might find its way on to other platforms.
Hope this helps, please PM me if there's anything else I might be able to help you with.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
The radar is very compact and operates in a small volume that precludes the use of a mechanical 'repositioner'. This does reduce the field of regard and requires the use of the bulkhead orientation/design and standby position for signature management, but the installation itself is a work of art.
Engines, I appreciate your earlier comments - you are a gentleman.
Engines, I appreciate your earlier comments - you are a gentleman.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The F-35 just isn't designed as a fleet defence fighter, which is why the USN is designing the F/A-XX. I will quote SNAFU here, who sums it up well (can't link as he has a bl*gspot URL). This isn't a knock at the F-35, any more than I'd knock the A-10 for not being a fleet defence fighter.....
When the F-14 was designed the US Navy was EXTREMELY serious about the blue water fight. The assumption was that the USAF would be fully engaged doing its thing to support the Army and the naval services would be hookin' and jabbin' with enemy forces alone. With Marine Air only giving a few squadrons to the carrier requirement, it was up to the Navy to field the high end of the air defense force. Out of this was born the F-14.
The fear was that massed missile attacks on our capital ships would overwhelm our defenses and they would be sunk. It was also theorized that the Russians would seek to launch these missiles from distance via TU-95 in conjunction with either subs or surface ships and the problem is obvious.
The S-3 was the pinch hitter in the battle being responsible for long range maritime patrol with the additional task of anti-sub duty (again at distance) along with picking up anti-ship duties with the A-6, A-7 and soon to be introduced F-18.
But back to the Bear bombers loaded with heavyweight, long range, anti-ship missiles. That was the responsibility of the F-14 and its AIM-54 (Phoenix) missiles. Way back then they realized the need to "shoot the archer" before he could launch his arrows.
Which brings me full circle to what the F-14 was, wasn't and how the Navy flexed it into other roles. At the height of the Cold War the F-14 was focused on fleet defense, with the air superiority mission (as defined by the USAF) being a distant second. In case of war the job was to protect the fleet. The threat was bombers carrying missiles and the plane was optimized to do that job. It was a big, twin engined beast with great range, a two man crew, huge radar, massive missile load, fast and it flew high.
The F-35, Super Hornet, and Hornet just don't compare. That doesn't make them bad planes (well, not exactly, the F-35 sucks donkey dick) it just means that if the Navy and Pentagon are really serious about gearing up for a battle against a near peer threat then it needs to rethink its drink when it comes to the planes its putting on its deck.
The emphasis on land attack has destroyed Navy Aviation and taken its eyes off the prize. In actuality it needs a replacement F-14. It needs a big, long ranged fleet defense fighter that can meet the J-20 or any other airplane carrying anti-ship missiles at distance and shoot them down before they get within launch distance. At this time I personally estimate that to be at least 500 miles from the carrier (this is to allow for advances in anti-ship missile range) and a decent loiter time before it has to return. We're talking about a big airplane...probably as big as the A-5. As things stand now, the Navy will lose ships in the next sea battle. Its just not built like it was in the old days to deal with threats that have RE-emerged.
When the F-14 was designed the US Navy was EXTREMELY serious about the blue water fight. The assumption was that the USAF would be fully engaged doing its thing to support the Army and the naval services would be hookin' and jabbin' with enemy forces alone. With Marine Air only giving a few squadrons to the carrier requirement, it was up to the Navy to field the high end of the air defense force. Out of this was born the F-14.
The fear was that massed missile attacks on our capital ships would overwhelm our defenses and they would be sunk. It was also theorized that the Russians would seek to launch these missiles from distance via TU-95 in conjunction with either subs or surface ships and the problem is obvious.
The S-3 was the pinch hitter in the battle being responsible for long range maritime patrol with the additional task of anti-sub duty (again at distance) along with picking up anti-ship duties with the A-6, A-7 and soon to be introduced F-18.
But back to the Bear bombers loaded with heavyweight, long range, anti-ship missiles. That was the responsibility of the F-14 and its AIM-54 (Phoenix) missiles. Way back then they realized the need to "shoot the archer" before he could launch his arrows.
Which brings me full circle to what the F-14 was, wasn't and how the Navy flexed it into other roles. At the height of the Cold War the F-14 was focused on fleet defense, with the air superiority mission (as defined by the USAF) being a distant second. In case of war the job was to protect the fleet. The threat was bombers carrying missiles and the plane was optimized to do that job. It was a big, twin engined beast with great range, a two man crew, huge radar, massive missile load, fast and it flew high.
The F-35, Super Hornet, and Hornet just don't compare. That doesn't make them bad planes (well, not exactly, the F-35 sucks donkey dick) it just means that if the Navy and Pentagon are really serious about gearing up for a battle against a near peer threat then it needs to rethink its drink when it comes to the planes its putting on its deck.
The emphasis on land attack has destroyed Navy Aviation and taken its eyes off the prize. In actuality it needs a replacement F-14. It needs a big, long ranged fleet defense fighter that can meet the J-20 or any other airplane carrying anti-ship missiles at distance and shoot them down before they get within launch distance. At this time I personally estimate that to be at least 500 miles from the carrier (this is to allow for advances in anti-ship missile range) and a decent loiter time before it has to return. We're talking about a big airplane...probably as big as the A-5. As things stand now, the Navy will lose ships in the next sea battle. Its just not built like it was in the old days to deal with threats that have RE-emerged.
a1bill, I hope you will accept my apology for my recent comment. For one thing it was not written well and became harsher than I meant it to be and for another thing although I behave badly in the heat of the moment, I do not overall wish any harm to be done and would regret it if there was.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill, I hope you will accept my apology for my recent comment. For one thing it was not written well and became harsher than I meant it to be and for another thing although I behave badly in the heat of the moment, I do not overall wish any harm to be done and would regret it if there was.
If I couldn't go too far sometimes, I would cancel my ISP as a waste of money
why don't you go back and delete the posts and I'll delete any replys..including this one...it never happened
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The emphasis on land attack has destroyed Navy Aviation and taken its eyes off the prize. In actuality it needs a replacement F-14. It needs a big, long ranged fleet defense fighter that can meet the J-20 or any other airplane carrying anti-ship missiles at distance and shoot them down before they get within launch distance. At this time I personally estimate that to be at least 500 miles from the carrier (this is to allow for advances in anti-ship missile range) and a decent loiter time before it has to return. We're talking about a big airplane...probably as big as the A-5. As things stand now, the Navy will lose ships in the next sea battle. Its just not built like it was in the old days to deal with threats that have RE-emerged."
If this is true of USN carriers, perhaps someone would explain to me (since I am non-RN) why it isn't true of RN carriers. If it is true of RN carriers, then it seems they have no defence against such attack scenarios. While we probably won't be head to head with Russia or China, apart from submarine attack, what other attack scenarios can we envisage that require a fleet defence fighter. Are we relying entirely upon anti-aircraft support ships to defend our carriers and is that a good idea for our navy? Can we envisage within the life span of our carriers someone like Iran or Turkey developing an airborne attack aircraft with missiles which might pose a threat within our area of interest?
If this is true of USN carriers, perhaps someone would explain to me (since I am non-RN) why it isn't true of RN carriers. If it is true of RN carriers, then it seems they have no defence against such attack scenarios. While we probably won't be head to head with Russia or China, apart from submarine attack, what other attack scenarios can we envisage that require a fleet defence fighter. Are we relying entirely upon anti-aircraft support ships to defend our carriers and is that a good idea for our navy? Can we envisage within the life span of our carriers someone like Iran or Turkey developing an airborne attack aircraft with missiles which might pose a threat within our area of interest?
If this is true of USN carriers, perhaps someone would explain to me (since I am non-RN) why it isn't true of RN carriers. If it is true of RN carriers, then it seems they have no defence against such attack scenarios. While we probably won't be head to head with Russia or China, apart from submarine attack, what other attack scenarios can we envisage that require a fleet defence fighter. Are we relying entirely upon anti-aircraft support ships to defend our carriers and is that a good idea for our navy? Can we envisage within the life span of our carriers someone like Iran or Turkey developing an airborne attack aircraft with missiles which might pose a threat within our area of interest?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But back to the Bear bombers loaded with heavyweight, long range, anti-ship missiles. That was the responsibility of the F-14 and its AIM-54 (Phoenix) missiles. Way back then they realized the need to "shoot the archer" before he could launch his arrows.
That being said, I tend to agree with Lonewolf. The powers that be (whoever they may be) have decided that the probability of a confrontation with an adversary with long range anti-ship missiles is low enough that we no longer need airborne fleet defense. And/or the advent of Aegis and cooperative engagement has provided a more cost effective way to provide fleet defense, so Phoenix and a long range platform to carry it and its sensors is no longer needed. I'm personally uncomfortable with that decision, but I'm pretty old school and was raised thinking that a fleet defense missile and a fighter to carry it were essential to the carrier battle group. That thinking has clearly changed.
However hostile one is to F35 (and clearly many on here are fairly hostile) I don't think it is true of fair to suggest that the aircraft will be entirely useless in the fleet air defence role that the RN will in part require of it. Engines has suggested above (if I have understood him correctly, and my apologies to him if I haven't) how its blend of capabilities should enable it to acquit that role capably and it would form part of layered defence.
Of course, taking on a tier 1 opponent single-handedly by means of a CVF parked off their coast may not be the best idea, but I don't think that's what we have in mind. Different considerations may apply to the US in that regard.
Of course, taking on a tier 1 opponent single-handedly by means of a CVF parked off their coast may not be the best idea, but I don't think that's what we have in mind. Different considerations may apply to the US in that regard.
Based on my training and education under the JPME system in the US, carriers do not deploy in a vacuum. They are part of a Joint Task force or a Joint Force of some sort in a serious operation, particularly on the scale you mention. A good theater commander will shape the battlefield using a variety of assets. (The other thing we got taught is that in nearly every case, we should expect to be part of a coalition. Not sure how much that has changed, but it seems to be the most common approach).
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think the scenario generating the sucking of thumbs is the China Seas and problems around Japan, Korea, the Phillipines etc - and the growing Chinese naval and air presence. What allies do you expect and what air superiority, ignoring the entire idea of air supremacy.
It was interesting to read this soft sell rebuttal of the axe grinding report published on warisboring. (Axe and ax grinding go well together, see V-22 for a number of years ...). This Norwegian Viper pilot has some disagreements with the pilot who made all of that splash with his criticism. While he agreed with the visibility concerns, he apparently tried to find a solution and did. Hmm, I wonder if being a grad of USNTPS might be a good thing.
It was interesting to see his comments about how the USAF is developing its "how to fight the F-35" process.
This does not surprise me. Dogfighting in the Phantom, as an art, developed over the years. Why would that not be true for the F-35?
It was interesting to see his comments about how the USAF is developing its "how to fight the F-35" process.
“The final ‘textbook’ for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – basic fighter maneouvres – has not been written yet,” Hanche says. “It is literally being written by my neighbour down here in Arizona!"
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the message from this Norwegian pilot is far more positive than the previous message, strangely the previous message was not rebutted by LM or the DoD, nor of course was it stated what type of helmet was being worn.
So we have a first story that a development aircraft, with I would have thought, no artificially low G limits applied by software, flying like a brick and a G limited aircraft outmaneuvering an F16.
Obviously the second story is much more hopeful, it just does not feel right that an experienced test pilot in an unrestricted plane was "outflown" by an F16 whilst a restricted line plane is far better than an F16. I am of course prepared to be proven wrong.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
I would suspect of the three carrier task force threats, Air, Surface and Sub-surface, the emphasis may be shifting towards Sub-surface as being of the greatest concern. The defensive trend may be to employ more killer subs in carrier task forces to ward off missile carrying subs and slightly less emphasis on airborne defense.
Just some thoughts...
China Submarine Capabilities | NTI
I think the scenario generating the sucking of thumbs is the China Seas and problems around Japan, Korea, the Phillipines etc - and the growing Chinese naval and air presence.
Just some thoughts...
China Submarine Capabilities | NTI
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted this over on another forum, with the usual ad hominem replies that you should expect over there:
An article in the Australian press about the F-35 contains a tidbit that supports the infamous LM test pilot F-16D v. F-35A eval, and disabuses the recent Norwegian pirep:
"[Former RAAF Wing Commander Chris] Mills says the JSF has a nickname among the top guns of the US Air Force: 'the little turd'."
Australia needs to 'show spine' over Joint Strike Fighter says expert - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The F-35 is not an air superiority type. It is an attack aircraft that should have a F/A designation. The Navy needs to wake up and get serious about the NGAD / F/A-XX replacement for the Super Hornet, this time optimized for fleet air defense - similar to the F-14D that had reliable / uprated engines and a decent secondary attack capability.
An article in the Australian press about the F-35 contains a tidbit that supports the infamous LM test pilot F-16D v. F-35A eval, and disabuses the recent Norwegian pirep:
"[Former RAAF Wing Commander Chris] Mills says the JSF has a nickname among the top guns of the US Air Force: 'the little turd'."
Australia needs to 'show spine' over Joint Strike Fighter says expert - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The F-35 is not an air superiority type. It is an attack aircraft that should have a F/A designation. The Navy needs to wake up and get serious about the NGAD / F/A-XX replacement for the Super Hornet, this time optimized for fleet air defense - similar to the F-14D that had reliable / uprated engines and a decent secondary attack capability.
Last edited by Maus92; 5th Mar 2016 at 14:10.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh God! Chris Mills....yawn.
Isn't he a contributor/member of the APA Kopp, Goon & Clown brigade? Famed for their sexed-up Pacific vision doom-mongering?
Maus, come on dude. You can find more credible debate out there than the usual protagonists, surely?!
Isn't he a contributor/member of the APA Kopp, Goon & Clown brigade? Famed for their sexed-up Pacific vision doom-mongering?
Maus, come on dude. You can find more credible debate out there than the usual protagonists, surely?!
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf what made me question some of what this Norwegian pilot said was uncertainty as to what sort of F35 he was flying, one with software release 2B or 3I I would suggest as to my knowledge and belief there are no development aircraft in Arizona, they are all I think at Edwards and Pax River.
Obviously the message from this Norwegian pilot is far more positive than the previous message, strangely the previous message was not rebutted by LM or the DoD, nor of course was it stated what type of helmet was being worn.
So we have a first story that a development aircraft, with I would have thought, no artificially low G limits applied by software, flying like a brick and a G limited aircraft outmaneuvering an F16.
Obviously the second story is much more hopeful, it just does not feel right that an experienced test pilot in an unrestricted plane was "outflown" by an F16 whilst a restricted line plane is far better than an F16. I am of course prepared to be proven wrong.
Obviously the message from this Norwegian pilot is far more positive than the previous message, strangely the previous message was not rebutted by LM or the DoD, nor of course was it stated what type of helmet was being worn.
So we have a first story that a development aircraft, with I would have thought, no artificially low G limits applied by software, flying like a brick and a G limited aircraft outmaneuvering an F16.
Obviously the second story is much more hopeful, it just does not feel right that an experienced test pilot in an unrestricted plane was "outflown" by an F16 whilst a restricted line plane is far better than an F16. I am of course prepared to be proven wrong.
did they take on board that the flight control laws needed tuning. what changed have they made to the flight control laws in the last 12 months?
the norg has the gen 3 helmet and we don't know what he was flying, as a test pilot, it may well have been the full envelope test planes if they are writing the book.