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 3rd Aug 2016, 15:46
  #9541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
USAF Declares F-35 Ready For War

The U.S. Air Force on Aug. 2 officially declared the F-35 ready for war, a huge milestone that signals the tide may finally be turning for the fifth-generation fighter jet.


The decision to declare the Air Force’s F-35A operational right around the target date of Aug. 1 is a triumph for a program with a long history of cost overruns, technological challenges, and schedule delays. But now that the chief of Air Combat Command (ACC) has finally given the green light, the Air Force will waste no time in deploying the Joint Strike Fighter to Europe, the Pacific and even the Middle East.

“I would like to deploy it to both the European and the Pacific theater in the not-toodistant future, so I would say within 18 months I think I’ll try to get to both those theaters,” said ACC commander Gen. Herbert Carlisle, adding that if U.S. Central Command asks for the F-35 in the Middle East, he would send it in a heartbeat.

The plan to send the F-35 to combat zones in the next few years stands in sharp contrast to the Air Force’s delay in deploying its other stealth fighter jet, the F-22. Though the Raptor entered service in 2005, the jet did not see combat until the U.S.-led intervention in Syria in 2014. The F-22’s time spent fighting Islamic State terrorists and its deployment to Europe as part of the U.S. response to Russian resurgence did wonders for its public image, even sparking a movement in Congress to potentially restart the production line.

In rolling out the F-35, the Air Force may be taking lessons learned from the Raptor to heart. U.S. partners and allies really want to see the jet in action, Carlisle said. “I think when the F-35 deploys to places like in the European theater as well as in the Pacific theater, it will give our allies and partners confidence in the airframe,” Carlisle said. “It will also give them a chance to see it in operation and see it in interoperability working with their fourth-generation airplanes.” Deploying the F-35 to these regions also serves as an effective deterrent to potential adversaries, Carlisle said—in other words, Russia.

The Air Force decided not to deploy the F-22 to combat zones immediately because some believed sending the world’s only fifthgeneration stealth fighter to the Middle East would be viewed as a provocative move, Carlisle explained. However, at this point he does not believe operating the F-35 over the skies of Iraq and Syria is a bad move. “From my perspective, I think it sends a good signal,” Carlisle said. “I think it reassures friends and allies and it is a deterrent to potential adversaries, so I don’t think it’s provocative at all.”
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 16:44
  #9542 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,068
C'est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie

General Pierre Bosquet
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 17:57
  #9543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
There hasn't been a "proper" war since WWII, but, lots of skirmishes, just saying....
Again, that's kind of my point. A student of history might say we are due one....
Tourist is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 18:34
  #9544 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,068
There are lots of wars going on, just no "war to end wars", and with nukes there probably won't be. With the wars we have, there is no need for the politicians to pay for high end tech stuff, and with the production lead time, if one flared up you couldn't build them, you'd fight with what you had.
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 19:08
  #9545 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,068
Hmmm, this week's AW&ST has an article about the A-10 replacement. They want to do it with 2 types, first off a light weight low end attack aircraft (OA-X) such as the AT-6, to supplement the presence types, then a longer term A-10 replacement (A-X2) for medium threat theatres, such as the M-346 (the high threat theatres being the realm of the F-35, natch).

But where does the money come from for two new programmes?

"......since the F-35A was initially meant to replace the A-10, the Joint Strike Fighter buy may now be a bill payer for the OA-X and/or AX2....... The Air Force has backed away from statements that the F-35A is a one-for-one replacement for the Warthog, but the two aircraft will still directly compete for funding over the next few years...."

And the A-10/CAS has an awful lot of support on the Hill.

Still so confident on programme numbers?
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Aug 2016, 20:51
  #9546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
ORAC,
With the wars we have, there is no need for the politicians to pay for high end tech stuff, and with the production lead time, if one flared up you couldn't build them, you'd fight with what you had.
Wow! That is exactly a point I was going to make, you beat me to it. Even with no war and how many years in, these planes are coming out in dribbles and drabs. Why? There isn't the money...

Last edited by Turbine D; 3rd Aug 2016 at 20:52. Reason: spelling correction
Turbine D is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 11:04
  #9547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"he does not believe operating the F-35 over the skies of Iraq and Syria is a bad move."

How much will the Russians and the Chinese for the first one to be shot down?????
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 12:11
  #9548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,361
If you meant "how much will the Russians and Chinese pay for the first one shot down"...a bit more than for an F-117, I suppose.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 12:46
  #9549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
By the look of some of their recent toys, they don't need a broken one...
Tourist is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 14:31
  #9550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 767
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
I don't think ANY postwar program has led to a 5 times original planned purchase.................................

Not sure about 5x, but I'll play, I imagine these programs exceeded original planned purchase:


AK-47 rifle
UH-1 Huey
CH-47 Chinook
F-4 Phantom
F-16
MRAP
Tomahawk Missile
AIM-9 Sidewinder
DDG Arliegh Burke Class
C-130 Hercules
Global Hawk
Reaper
HUMVEE
MiG-21
....
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 17:19
  #9551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,020
The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says

The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday.

During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane.

“If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.

“We basically told them where we were at and said, ‘Hey, try to shoot at us,’ ” he said, adding that without the transponders on, “most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home.”
Well, that's OK then. All is well in the F35 world...
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 18:14
  #9552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 61
Posts: 371
Slightly different story from the one about difficulties in getting F35s airborne as there were so many software problems and the report that an F35 needed so much support, with 2B and 3i software...
PhilipG is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 21:00
  #9553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,449
WTF-35: How the Joint Strike Fighter Got to Be Such a Mess

Interesting take on the F-35...

WTF-35: How the Joint Strike Fighter Got to Be Such a Mess
tdracer is offline  
Old 4th Aug 2016, 23:34
  #9554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
tdracer,
Interesting take on the F-35...
Thanks for posting this article, it represents what I have been attempting to say all along. The one thing about history is, we learn we don't learn and that will be the history of the F-35 for the next generation of aircraft developers to see and not repeat. It isn't that I am anti-F-35, it is that I am anti-stupid people that do stupid things that history has demonstrated can't be done. I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything. Only time will tell what damage will result from the stupid idea that one airplane can excellently perform missions for three different military services and save money doing it.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 07:59
  #9555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
tdracer,

I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything.
I'm confused.

Are you saying that the F15, F16 and F18 are bad?

It is difficult to workout what you are saying.
Tourist is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 09:26
  #9556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Tuc

I think he's raving about the F-111 - and trying to make the point that the others were built BECAUSE of the problems with F-111 procurement, design & cost ie specialised roles instead of all -singing, all-dancing........
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 09:29
  #9557 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,068
I think he is saying that they (and certainly the F-16/18 as light weight fighters (thanks you Boyd)) came about as a consequence of the fingers burnt with the F-111A/B single design for USAF/USN debacle.

Edited - what he said.....
ORAC is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 10:00
  #9558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,400
Ah, ok, I get it.

You have never written Flight Manuals for Airbus have you Turbine D?
Tourist is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 14:00
  #9559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 767
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post

....It isn't that I am anti-F-35, it is that I am anti-stupid people that do stupid things that history has demonstrated can't be done. I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything.....

Huhhh? If this is an anti-F-111 rant, and anti jack of all trades rant, I get that, but I really have to question the mentioning of the F-4, F-15, F-16 and F-18 coming about because of the problems of the F-111 program. The F-14 is the only aircraft I would directly cite as coming into being due to the F-111 failures- namely the failure of the F-111B to meet US Navy program requirements and never being put into production. There I do get that the requirements of a USAF penetrator and a USN fleet defense fighter should never have been kludged into one airframe- it was doomed to failure, so I do agree there. I also agree that doing this for the F-35 was a bridge too far.


The F-4 was developed as a Fleet Defense fighter for the US Navy long before the TFX/F-111 program. It was later adopted by the USAF and a host of other nations as a multi-role fighter, and is arguably the best example of a multi mission "fighter". It did many things well (I did not say it was the "best" at anything).


The F-15 was an air superiority fighter. Period. Not related to the F-111 problems or mission at all. Designed to achieve air superiority and replace other airframes such as the F-4 and others.


The F-16 was a light day fighter of the Boyd era. No relation to the F-111 problems. Part of the ho-low mix with the F-15.


The F-18 was designed as a carrier capable aircraft to replace the A-4 and A-7 in the light attack role, with the benefit of being a fighter as well.


The F-14 was a direct result of the failure of the F-111B to enter US Navy service, but you did not list the Tomcat. The engines, radar and Phoenix missiles were recycled from the F-111B for the F-14.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 14:58
  #9560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
I think he is saying that they (and certainly the F-16/18 as light weight fighters (thanks you Boyd)) came about as a consequence of the fingers burnt with the F-111A/B single design for USAF/USN debacle.
Thanks ORAC, that is exactly what I was attempting to say.

Tourist,
You have never written Flight Manuals for Airbus have you Turbine D?
You're having trouble with meaning of French translated into English words, are you?

sandiego89,
You provided definition to the point the best military jets are designed for specific missions, unlike that which has taken place on the F-35 program.
Turbine D is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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