F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a logical plan, up to a point.
100 jets that can get to the fight and raise a friendly digit to the IADS, which can't see them even with VHF.
75 jets that can stand off at a great distance and throw things that are hard and expensive to shoot down.
But only up to a point. Because then you have 1900 jets that can't get anywhere without a tanker. Speaking of tankers, I'm sure there was supposed to be one around here, 'cos I'm out of gas over the oggin. What happened to the tanker? Oh
100 jets that can get to the fight and raise a friendly digit to the IADS, which can't see them even with VHF.
75 jets that can stand off at a great distance and throw things that are hard and expensive to shoot down.
But only up to a point. Because then you have 1900 jets that can't get anywhere without a tanker. Speaking of tankers, I'm sure there was supposed to be one around here, 'cos I'm out of gas over the oggin. What happened to the tanker? Oh
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in the meantime, whilst REMF F35's are developed into "warfighter material"...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2015...raeli-product/
"TAIPEI and ISLAMABAD — A Chinese avionics marketing and manufacturing firm has put Israeli-US relations under a microscope after marketing an advanced fire control radar identical to Elta's ELM-2052 active electronically scanned array (AESA)"
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2015...raeli-product/
"TAIPEI and ISLAMABAD — A Chinese avionics marketing and manufacturing firm has put Israeli-US relations under a microscope after marketing an advanced fire control radar identical to Elta's ELM-2052 active electronically scanned array (AESA)"
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From GR's linked story:
Yang Yunchun, NAV Technology chairman and president, did not respond to repeated requests to comment. By phone, NAV Technology’s Mr. Xiong turned down requests for information about the company’s activities.
That's a shocker.
Yang Yunchun, NAV Technology chairman and president, did not respond to repeated requests to comment. By phone, NAV Technology’s Mr. Xiong turned down requests for information about the company’s activities.
That's a shocker.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a good comment following that link ORAC put up:-
"Earl Tower • 3 hours ago
I think the US Navy always felt the C model of the F-35 was a pig in a poke. The B model at last has the idea of it might have some operational use due to its VSTOL capacities, and the USAF can always just use the A model as an over sensored F-16. In the end the A is usable, since the Air Force tends to integrate several air craft types into any air campaign, and the B can see use for sea control ship style functions. The C model just doesn't have enough over the advanced F-18 superhornets to really matter in the long run.
The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation. Instead they tend to just batter the defenses down and peel the target back layer by layer till there is no opposition. Besides for deep strike the Navy can always turn to land attack cruise missiles. By the time the Navy is doing land strikes, they have destroyed air defenses and gained air superiority. So that stealth for the F-35 is just a waste of money."
"Earl Tower • 3 hours ago
I think the US Navy always felt the C model of the F-35 was a pig in a poke. The B model at last has the idea of it might have some operational use due to its VSTOL capacities, and the USAF can always just use the A model as an over sensored F-16. In the end the A is usable, since the Air Force tends to integrate several air craft types into any air campaign, and the B can see use for sea control ship style functions. The C model just doesn't have enough over the advanced F-18 superhornets to really matter in the long run.
The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation. Instead they tend to just batter the defenses down and peel the target back layer by layer till there is no opposition. Besides for deep strike the Navy can always turn to land attack cruise missiles. By the time the Navy is doing land strikes, they have destroyed air defenses and gained air superiority. So that stealth for the F-35 is just a waste of money."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the meantime HMS Ocean sold for half the price of a single F35...
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk...for-84-million
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk...for-84-million
On aviationanalysiswing:-
Norway carries out first in-country F-35A parachute braking trials
Snip:-
Norway carries out first in-country F-35A parachute braking trials
Snip:-
Norway has completed the first in-country braking trial of a drag chute fitted F-35A on Feb 16, from the Ørland Air Force Base.
The test successfully verified the parachute braking system, a unique feature being developed for the Norwegian F-35As.
It is being added in order to rapidly decelerate Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35s after landing on the country’s icy runways when there are challenging wind conditions.
The chute is housed under a small fairing on the upper rear fuselage between the vertical tails.
The test successfully verified the parachute braking system, a unique feature being developed for the Norwegian F-35As.
It is being added in order to rapidly decelerate Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35s after landing on the country’s icy runways when there are challenging wind conditions.
The chute is housed under a small fairing on the upper rear fuselage between the vertical tails.
The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation. Instead they tend to just batter the defenses down and peel the target back layer by layer till there is no opposition. Besides for deep strike the Navy can always turn to land attack cruise missiles. By the time the Navy is doing land strikes, they have destroyed air defenses and gained air superiority. So that stealth for the F-35 is just a waste of money."
The A3, A5, particularly A6 and to a degree the Bombcat role for F14 towards the end of its life tend to contradict that. The failure/cancellation of the A12 programme to replace the A6 constrained them to the construct they have now. Nor can cruise missiles service all the deep strike targets you might wish to hit.
The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation.
A-5, A-6 (with EA-6B support) and A-12 (our first go at a stealth strike platform that ran into serious troubles as it was to replace our A-6 but died in the acquisition process) all are deep strike capabilities (and roles and missions areas) that go back some decades. Not_a_boffin's point on the Tomcat/Bombcat is well made. (I recall a few missions from carriers in the PG up into Northern Iraq around Tal Afar over a decade ago, CAS/Strike). Part of the appeal of A-12, had it come to fruition rather than dying a horrible death, was its capacity for strikes that avoid IADS networks, and avoid the need for the SEAD war first ...
Does the USN have a Buff (B-52)? No. That's the USAF's bailiwick.
In the meantime HMS Ocean sold for half the price of a single F35...
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk...for-84-million
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk...for-84-million
Slightly more than half of what we paid for it. Not bad after 20 years of service
Sorry for the thread drift, but I really don't see the logic behind mothballing the relatively new B1 and B2, while dumping vast money into the 60 year old BUFF (I'd estimate the re-engine program at a minimum of $100 million each - probably quite a bit more with the associated R&D).
The B2 is quite stealthy, the B1 moderately so, while the BUFF is the antithesis of stealth. Yea, the BUFF can carry a large load, but the B1 is no slouch in that regard. In any sort of contested airspace the BUFF would be a sitting duck (or as a minimum would require a fleet of suppression aircraft) - the B1 and B2 would have at least a fighting chance.
What am I missing?
The B2 is quite stealthy, the B1 moderately so, while the BUFF is the antithesis of stealth. Yea, the BUFF can carry a large load, but the B1 is no slouch in that regard. In any sort of contested airspace the BUFF would be a sitting duck (or as a minimum would require a fleet of suppression aircraft) - the B1 and B2 would have at least a fighting chance.
What am I missing?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread drift, but I really don't see the logic behind mothballing the relatively new B1 and B2, while dumping vast money into the 60 year old BUFF (I'd estimate the re-engine program at a minimum of $100 million each - probably quite a bit more with the associated R&D).
The B2 is quite stealthy, the B1 moderately so, while the BUFF is the antithesis of stealth. Yea, the BUFF can carry a large load, but the B1 is no slouch in that regard. In any sort of contested airspace the BUFF would be a sitting duck (or as a minimum would require a fleet of suppression aircraft) - the B1 and B2 would have at least a fighting chance.
What am I missing?
The B2 is quite stealthy, the B1 moderately so, while the BUFF is the antithesis of stealth. Yea, the BUFF can carry a large load, but the B1 is no slouch in that regard. In any sort of contested airspace the BUFF would be a sitting duck (or as a minimum would require a fleet of suppression aircraft) - the B1 and B2 would have at least a fighting chance.
What am I missing?
That's not really correct. A single large high bypass engine on the outboard pylons would end up too close to the ground. Some people claim this would cause an engine strike in a cross wind landing, but that's false. The B-52 does not bank into a crosswind. It has steerable landing gear and crabs wings level into a crosswind. The real problem is two-fold: FOD ingestion and wing flutter. In addition the airflow and CG distibution of a four engine layout would be very very different than the 8 engine layout. This would require recertification of every weapon and weapon combination from every store location and combination of store locations on the aircraft. That would require a LOT of very expensive test flying. The more we looked at the four engine solution, the worse it got. It quickly became a non player. The advent of modern engines in the required thrust range designed for biz jets made an eight engine solution possible again. There are still some issues, but they are miniscule compared to the four engine solution.
As for the B-52 vs the B-1, USAF preferred keeping the Bone flying over the Buff. For the past 10+ years USAF has been tearing down and doing deep-dive inspections of the Bone's structure. Sadly, keeping the structure safe to fly much past a single design lifetime is going to be very difficult and horrendously expensive. So the Buff gets the nod over the Bone and the Buff's new engines will pay for themselves if the Buff keeps flying for another 20-25 years. And to ensure that, USAF is investing heavily in corrosion inspections, abatement, correction and protection on the Buff. As for the B-2, that fleet is just too small to effectively manage and its stealth coating systems ludicrously difficult and expensive to maintain, so keeping it going after the B-21 comes on line would be foolish.
Last edited by KenV; 22nd Feb 2018 at 15:38.
