F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[2805662]

Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

Ahhh so we have a hierarchy ...

Firm Order
Negotiating
Committed
Planned
Ambition
Aspiration
Deferral
Cancellation

Isn’t that a progression?

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Mil-26Man

Why would the F-35 need to drop its ordnance directly over where it has tanked? That's not how tanking works, but you already know that.

I had a real education dropped into my lap when I had to deal with it for real in sustained ops. All those things I thought I knew .... uh, I didn't. Good to learn, though. In a non permissive environment, the tanking puzzle is critical to get right. I would expect that any number of CONOPS documents have been drawn up, and probably a few tested out a Nellis at the very least.

Edited out incorrect assumption. (oops)

[George K Lee]

First of all, the US ambassador is really called Woody Johnson? Sounds like a co-star in one of Ms Daniels' movies.

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. We all know that is tosh, but Boeing is paying to have it said. (PS Mr Mil - I wasn't talking about GBAD.)

Third, the support for Typhoon in Belgium is really telling. That's not just planting leaks in the Torygraph in hopes of pressuring LM into a better deal (and the UK is pretty insignificant there, compared to the Pentagon). That's "we want to keep Typhoon going because we may end up needing to buy more".

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

Third, the support for Typhoon in Belgium is really telling. That's not just planting leaks in the Torygraph in hopes of pressuring LM into a better deal (and the UK is pretty insignificant there, compared to the Pentagon). That's "we want to keep Typhoon going because we may end up needing to buy more".

An alternate interpretation might just be that as one of the four members of NETMA and also responsible in partnership with the other three nations for sales, the UK is just trying to demonstrate that being a good European doesn't end with Brexit. Given that Eurofighter sales are at least as important to Warton (and RR) as F35 - the UK can't not support a Eurofighter bid, even if BAES stands to benefit from an F35 win as well.

[Heathrow Harry]

Originally Posted by 2805662

Isn’t that a progression?

to true..............

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. We all know that is tosh,

I am sure it can fly in contested air space: the enemy needs targets too. ('Cos, y'know, the stealth planes are invisible)

[KenV]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. We all know that is tosh, but Boeing is paying to have it said. (PS Mr Mil - I wasn't talking about GBAD.)

Guess it depend on the definition of "contested". Here's what the shill had in mind with regard to that: "Eighth, the Air Force's future tankers must be highly survivable, even when supporting operations in so-called anti-access/area denial environments. That entails being equipped with radar and infrared countermeasures that can defeat attackers, being hardened against the electromagnetic pulse generated by nuclear bursts, and being able to operate safely at night. The flight deck is even armored. As a result, KC-46 will be able to operate in environments where few tankers have gone in the past." So apparently not into any and all contested environments, but into more contested environments than today's tankers.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by KenV

Guess it depend on the definition of "contested". Here's what the shill had in mind with regard to that: "Eighth, the Air Force's future tankers must be highly survivable, even when supporting operations in so-called anti-access/area denial environments. That entails being equipped with radar and infrared countermeasures that can defeat attackers, being hardened against the electromagnetic pulse generated by nuclear bursts, and being able to operate safely at night. The flight deck is even armored. As a result, KC-46 will be able to operate in environments where few tankers have gone in the past." So apparently not into any and all contested environments, but into more contested environments than today's tankers.

We'll know if they've gone too far by that great big flaming fireball in the sky.
Ops(O) puts down coffee cup and sighs.

"Hmm, that area was more contested than we thought it would be, general ... "

Originally Posted by ORAC

So you’re back to dropping nukes on Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states then?

I am not sure how you arrive at that. NATO tends to forward deploy these days. *scratching head* You just named some NATO allies.

Alternatively, if you want to go bunker busting in any feasible enemy - then the targets are deep inside their territory outside the range of the F-35A without AAR well inside their airspace.

As I look at the order of battle, I find that the F-35 isn't the only aircraft, and that at least one aircraft, B-2, can handle that sort of mission if you are the USAF. If not, then ... what, is that the problem? The RAF can't be all things to all people?

[ORAC]

We are discussing the possible role for German F-35As, if they bought them. The Germans are not renowned for showing eagerness to deploy armed aircraft - at least since 1945. Hence the assumption must be they would only ever be utilised in the role against an attack against NATO by Russia.

The weapon storage locations and their handling also strongly strongly suggest that they would only ever be employed in extremist from their home bases - which implies against enemy forces advancing through the Baltic states, Hungary or Poland - and from time and other constraints probably the latter. seeing as the B61-12 is optimised for attacks against bunkers I have to question what sort of target they would conceivably be employed against.

In the unlikely event event they were targeted against a site deeper in Russian territory they would require AAR far beyond the FEBA.

In such circumstances it would also suggest a scramble in such extremis that a planned COMAO with advance fighter sweep, EW, C4I, AAR supper would not be possible. If it was possible then then tankers would be on orbits at least 150nm short of the FEBA behind protective EW and fighter CAPS with the bombers interleaved with other tanking assets so they couldn’t be spotted - and would then have to fly an indirect route clear of other formations to prevent their being accidentally engaged at the same time as other assets. So let us presume a route of at least 200nm before crossing the FEBA.

The F-35A combat radius is 590nm - allowing a penetration beyond the FEBA with a safe return of about 400nm - which wouldn’t reach the Russian border which is about 800nm. One way they couldn’t reach Moscow.

Which reminds me of the rumour that that that the range of the Tornado GR1 was designed to prevent the GAF being able to reach Moscow on a one way trip......

if you search there there has been a multi-year argument that the B61 is a bomb with no role in the modern era. The latest mods may give it a justifiable role - but not carried by a Tornado, Typhoon or F-35 - except to force their Belgian and German governments to make a nuclear commitment which will never be conceivably be employed.

I suppose they could bomb the sh*t out of Kaliningrad.....

[glad rag]

14851872929_28069fc330_b.jpg



Which reminds me of the rumour that that that the range of the Tornado GR1 was designed to prevent the GAF being able to reach Moscow on a one way trip......

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. We all know that is tosh, but Boeing is paying to have it said. (PS Mr Mil - I wasn't talking about GBAD.)
".

As others have noted, it depends on how you define 'contested', but I can attest to the KC-46 being designed to be able to withstand some battle damage. For example, those wire separation requirements that tripped up Boeing so badly were related to ballistic penetration - holes of a certain diameter were not allowed to take out redundant systems.

[ORAC]

Glad-rag. I am aware that the GAF subsequently procured buddy-refuelling for the Tornado, and the Eurofighter. A lot of water under the bridge since the MRCA was designed. And it was a tongue in check comment - along the lines of NATO being designed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in... and the Germans down...

The Israelis are reportedly developing stealth conformal tanks for their F-35As - reportedly. There has been no mention of a F-35 buddy pack as far as I am aware. It would, of course, total ruin the stealth profile and give away both aircraft, the price of the F-35 also makes using one for the role somewhat expensive. That does not mean that they could not be accompanied by another tactical tanker, the GAF could use a Eurofighter in the same way as the USN will continue to use the F-18 until the MQ-25 arrives in the fleet. Assuming, that is, they funded the fitting of a probe to the F-35A or bought the F-35C.....

Interesting that stealth is not a requirement for the MQ-25, the requirement being to carry the same Chobham refuelling pod as on the F-18 for commonality.

[emitex]

Thought it was 'Dave'?

The Air Force's Elite Weapons School Has Given The F-35 A New Nickname

[ORAC]

No vote, or single choice, for aircraft nicknames - and the drivers usually prefer a nicer one than the drivers of other fleets give them - though they sometimes adopt them out of perverse pride. I doubt it was the drivers who nicknamed the B-52 the Buff, the F-15E the Mudhen or the F-18 the Plastic Bug.

[Heathrow Harry]

Agreed- the "management", PR types and policitians prefer uplifting sound-bite names like "panther" whereas those who fly them and fly with them seem to prefer something a little more... descriptive??????

[George K Lee]

Of course, we know the reason for the official name, as explained (at 1:10) by the inimitable Penelope Keith...

You Tube

[glad rag]

Oooo that's going to get BLM on their case!!

[A_Van]

Originally Posted by ORAC

......
except to force their Belgian and German governments to make a nuclear commitment which will never be conceivably be employed.

I suppose they could bomb the sh*t out of Kaliningrad.....

Easy, easy .... Are you sure your last sentence was necessary?
Fortunately those folks seem to have enough brains and do not want to start the fire understanding what would happen to them in minutes.

[ORAC]

Easy, easy .... Are you sure your last sentence was necessary?

To demonstrate the farce of envisioning a role for the B61-12 for any future use of GAF Eurofighters or F-35As - yes......

[Onceapilot]

Originally Posted by ORAC

Which reminds me of the rumour that that that the range of the Tornado GR1 was designed to prevent the GAF being able to reach Moscow on a one way trip......

Why post this rubbish?

OAP