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 13th Jan 2019, 13:42
  #11681 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923
Peer-peer is often shorthand for peer or near-peer, and we've quite properly chosen to treat a number of adversaries as near-peer since 1983, including Yugoslavia/Serbia and Iraq.

And in those 36 years we were necessarily squaring off against the USSR and its Warpac allies (very much peer/near-peer) until the early 1990s.

Since about 2010 or so we've seen a resurgent Russia representing an increasingly serious and potentially existential threat. Russia has modernised its nuclear arsenal and has built facilities for nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad (Iskander-M cruise missiles, in contravention of INF). During the early months of the Trump administration, Russia reportedly told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis of its willingness to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions. Russia has invaded the Crimea, threatened the Baltic States, and committed murder on UK soil using chemical weapons and poisons. That Russian threat is growing.

And then you could look at what an expansionist China is doing in the South China Sea - and elsewhere.

Can we really assume that the relatively benign situation between 1992 and 2010 will continue? Would it not be the height of irresponsibility to fail to prepare for a slightly worse case scenario?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 15:04
  #11682 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 61
Posts: 514
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post

Since about 2010 or so we've seen a resurgent Russia representing an increasingly serious and potentially existential threat.
May I please suggest that your free your mind from blind hatred (russophobia) and think calmly.

Since dismissing of the WarPac NATO has extended its boards eastbound so that St-Petersbourg is just an artillery shot away. Naive Gorby was fooled by his western friends.. And even later, Russia (led by drunk Yeltsin) was only dropping its bases and presense abroad.

Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
Russia has modernised its nuclear arsenal and has built facilities for nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad (Iskander-M cruise missiles, in contravention of INF).
Do you really have a military background? Telling such obviously erroneous things....Iskander is not a cruise missile system, it's a ballistic one. And totally withing the range as specified in INF. Second, there is no need to build "facilities" for this complex, it's mobile. And it is just a pale shadow of the complexes that were eliminated in accordance with INF.

On the other side, it was US that unilaterally withdrew from ant-ballistic missile treaty in 2001. And started deploying anti-missile infrastructure in Europe. Now Russia has to answer and is answering.

Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
During the early months of the Trump administration, Russia reportedly told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis of its willingness to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions.
Can you provide an exact verified quote? Any country that has nukes would use them under "certain" conditions. E.g., when it faces a massive strike that represents "existential threat" as you put it.


Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
Russia has invaded the Crimea,
Total nonsense. Crimea separated from Ukraine under referendum. And with no casualties in total contrast with what NATO did with Serbia when cutting out part of its territory and establishing a psuedo-state of Kosovo.

Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
threatened the Baltic States,
Proof link/qoute, please.

Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
and committed murder on UK soil using chemical weapons and poisons.
British politicians shout about that, no real proof. The same as for MH-17, BTW, for which there is a clear evidance that Ukrainian SAM did that.



Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
And then you could look at what an expansionist China is doing in the South China Sea - and elsewhere.
And what is your concern?
A_Van is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 16:03
  #11683 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by A_Van View Post
The same as for MH-17, BTW, for which there is a clear evidance that Ukrainian SAM did that.
A_Van, Consider that the Russian Ministry of Defence spokesmen made a classic blunder during that last MH17 briefing? They had a pre-prepared statement for the Buks that they captured in Crimea, but did they simply forget about the ex-Ukrainian Buks captured in Georgia during 2008? Consider that the Russian 53rd actually had that missile in their inventory? Yes despite your claims in the following thread those Buk-M1s were still very much in Russian service. No doubt you will still be parroting the Russian MoD claim that the TELAR footage is all "faked by computer graphics experts".

Sergei Skripal
TEEEJ is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 16:59
  #11684 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by TEEEJ View Post
A_Van, Consider that the Russian Ministry of Defence spokesmen made a classic blunder during that last MH17 briefing? They had a pre-prepared statement for the Buks that they captured in Crimea, but did they simply forget about the ex-Ukrainian Buks captured in Georgia during 2008? Consider that the Russian 53rd actually had that missile in their inventory? Yes despite your claims in the following thread those Buk-M1s were still very much in Russian service. No doubt you will still be parroting the Russian MoD claim that the TELAR footage is all "faked by computer graphics experts".

Sergei Skripal
55 Savushkina Street, recognise it A (i)van?

weemonkey is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 17:54
  #11685 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,923
Originally Posted by A_Van View Post
May I please suggest that your free your mind from blind hatred (russophobia) and think calmly.

Since dismissing of the WarPac NATO has extended its boards eastbound so that St-Petersbourg is just an artillery shot away. Naive Gorby was fooled by his western friends.. And even later, Russia (led by drunk Yeltsin) was only dropping its bases and presense abroad.
I'm perfectly calm, thanks, and don't have any hatred of Russia or the Russians, though I think that your President is a corrupt, foolish, boastful and dangerous charlatan, and that Russia deserves a leader who more accurately reflects its many fine characteristics. The NATO nations are all democracies, and as such present no direct threat to Russia, though I can see that the desire of Poland and the Baltic states must seem to some Russian minds like ingratitude, and it must seem as though NATO's borders suddenly seem closer. But unless and until Russia or Belarus unanimously and overwhelmingly want to suddenly embrace Western values and join the party, NATO will never try to absorb or assimilate the Rodina. With respect, you need to look at NATO a little less hysterically, a little more calmly, and with much less suspicion, fear and paranoia.

Russia has frequently expanded through offensive military action (Georgia, Crimea, etc.) and has often maintained its grip on nations who wanted freedom from the old Soviet yoke. East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. I can't think of a single instance of NATO doing the same. Ever.

Do you really have a military background? Telling such obviously erroneous things....Iskander is not a cruise missile system, it's a ballistic one. And totally withing the range as specified in INF.
A slip of the keyboard finger, Van, old chap, wrt to 'cruise missile', but INF range - that's debateable.

On the other side, it was US that unilaterally withdrew from ant-ballistic missile treaty in 2001. And started deploying anti-missile infrastructure in Europe. Now Russia has to answer and is answering.
Anti missile defences are inherently defensive.

Can you provide an exact verified quote?
Google is your friend, Van.

Total nonsense. Crimea separated from Ukraine under referendum.
That so-called referendum followed Russia's military intervention and forced annexation, and was entirely illegitimate, as the UN General Assembly affirmed.

And with no casualties in total contrast with what NATO did with Serbia when cutting out part of its territory and establishing a psuedo-state of Kosovo.
Hardly. Kosovo was formed or 'established' in 1990-1992 when it declared itself a sovereign and independent state in September 1992, following Milosovic's ruthless intimidation and cultural oppression of the ethnic Albanian populationand his deliberate restriction of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. 113 UN member statesrecognise Kosovo, and only cynical Russian opposition prevented NATO's peacekeeping operation being able to gain the formal backing of a UNSC resolution.

The UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on 10 June 1999, placing Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) with autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.



International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo, but Russia frustrated attempts to agree a draft resolution calling for 'supervised independence' for the province.



A declaration of independence by Kosovar Albanian leaders followed the end of the Serbian presidential elections in February 2008.

Serbia and its ally Russia may not recognize this, but the bulk of the civilized world does, and it’s entirely in keeping with democratic principles and self-determination. The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion held that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation either of international law, which do not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence.

Proof link/qoute, please.
Google is your friend, Van.

British politicians shout about that, no real proof. The same as for MH-17, BTW, for which there is a clear evidance that Ukrainian SAM did that.
The assasination of Litvinenko using Polonium and the attempted assassination of the Skripals by Novichok has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Russia's attempts to deny and obfuscate are disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this nonsense. The evidence on MH-17 is also pretty clear, if you take off your blinkers.

And what is your concern?
That totalitarian China represents a growing threat to its neighbours, and to international order.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 18:49
  #11686 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: England
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
I'm perfectly calm, thanks, and don't have any hatred of Russia or the Russians, though I think that your President is a corrupt, foolish, boastful and dangerous charlatan, and that Russia deserves a leader who more accurately reflects its many fine characteristics. The NATO nations are all democracies, and as such present no direct threat to Russia, though I can see that the desire of Poland and the Baltic states must seem to some Russian minds like ingratitude, and it must seem as though NATO's borders suddenly seem closer. But unless and until Russia or Belarus unanimously and overwhelmingly want to suddenly embrace Western values and join the party, NATO will never try to absorb or assimilate the Rodina. With respect, you need to look at NATO a little less hysterically, a little more calmly, and with much less suspicion, fear and paranoia.

Russia has frequently expanded through offensive military action (Georgia, Crimea, etc.) and has often maintained its grip on nations who wanted freedom from the old Soviet yoke. East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. I can't think of a single instance of NATO doing the same. Ever.



A slip of the keyboard finger, Van, old chap, wrt to 'cruise missile', but INF range - that's debateable.



Anti missile defences are inherently defensive.



Google is your friend, Van.



That so-called referendum followed Russia's military intervention and forced annexation, and was entirely illegitimate, as the UN General Assembly affirmed.



Hardly. Kosovo was formed or 'established' in 1990-1992 when it declared itself a sovereign and independent state in September 1992, following Milosovic's ruthless intimidation and cultural oppression of the ethnic Albanian populationand his deliberate restriction of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. 113 UN member statesrecognise Kosovo, and only cynical Russian opposition prevented NATO's peacekeeping operation being able to gain the formal backing of a UNSC resolution.

The UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on 10 June 1999, placing Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) with autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.



International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo, but Russia frustrated attempts to agree a draft resolution calling for 'supervised independence' for the province.



A declaration of independence by Kosovar Albanian leaders followed the end of the Serbian presidential elections in February 2008.

Serbia and its ally Russia may not recognize this, but the bulk of the civilized world does, and itís entirely in keeping with democratic principles and self-determination. The International Court of Justiceís advisory opinion held that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation either of international law, which do not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence.



Google is your friend, Van.



The assasination of Litvinenko using Polonium and the attempted assassination of the Skripals by Novichok has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Russia's attempts to deny and obfuscate are disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this nonsense. The evidence on MH-17 is also pretty clear, if you take off your blinkers.



That totalitarian China represents a growing threat to its neighbours, and to international order.
Hell of a history lesson.
But. What has all this got to do with F35.
Are you suggesting that it is going to change the world.
Buster15 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2019, 22:20
  #11687 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,359
Originally Posted by FODPlod View Post
Level playing fields are
for idiots.
Military professionals of all kinds understand this. Prepare the battlefield for your advantage.
One enters into a war with the intent of winning, not with the intent of "finding out who wins." Is isn't sport. It's intramural homicide.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 01:03
  #11688 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,313
NATO......over aggressive?

Now by golly that is a new one!
SASless is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 21:27
  #11689 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,519
Picking up on an earlier comment... Shanahan has recused himself from issues involving Boeing as DepSecDef. However, that means that as acting SecDef, he's hands-off with the single biggest procurement program by far, and he has his opinions about that...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ntagon-1064203

That leaves the authority with USD (AT&L) Ellen Lord, but the problem is that she has to contend with the service chiefs.

I must say that I find it amusing that the usually voluble F-35 fankiddy community is silent about the SecDef's reported remarks....
LowObservable is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 04:33
  #11690 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,009
Singapore has selected the F-35 to replace its F-16s, at least in a trial basis.......

https://www.defensenews.com/global/a...ace-its-f-16s/

MELBOURNE, Australia — The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter appears to have secured another export success, with Singapore announcing that it has identified the type “as the most suitable replacement” for the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s fleet of F-16s.

In an announcement on Friday, Singapore’s defense ministry said that it made the decision following the completion of a technical evaluation conducted together with the Southeast Asian island nation’s Defence Science and Technology Agency. It added that “the technical evaluation also concluded that the RSAF should first purchase a small number of F-35 JSFs for a full evaluation of their capabilities and suitability before deciding on a full fleet.”

According to the ministry, Singapore will next discuss details with relevant parties in the United States before confirming its decision to acquire the F-35. Singapore’s defense minister Ng Eng Hen added that this process is expected to take “nine to 12 months.” The deal would almost certainly be through the United States Foreign Military Sales program.

Ng had previously said that the F-16s will start to be retired around 2030, although neither he nor the ministry’s announcement indicated how many F-35s will initially be acquired. Also not revealed was the variants that Singapore would buy. A ministry spokesperson declined to provide further details when asked by Defense News.........


ORAC is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 09:25
  #11691 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 964
Makes sense - they have to have to go for a Qualitative rather than a quantitative advantage, they can't man a vast fleet and they have both the money and the technical skills to operate and maintain advanced aircraft
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 12:15
  #11692 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 277
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Makes sense - they have to have to go for a Qualitative rather than a quantitative advantage, they can't man a vast fleet and they have both the money and the technical skills to operate and maintain advanced aircraft
They seem to try for both! Certainly when compared to their nearest neighbours, Singapore has 40 F-15s and 60 F-16s compared to Malaysia's 18 Su-30s and 8 F/A-18s or Indonesia's 16 Flankers and 25 F-16s.
Bing is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 13:22
  #11693 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 964
I guess when you have larger armies on either side you go for air power- 300,000 in the Indonesian Army - tho that is a VERY variable quality organisation

The Singapore Navy could probably take on anyone locally as well

But probably they just need someone to flick a switch in an office off Orchard Road and switch off electricity and fry every computer outside Singapore for a couple of thousand kms - they study the Israeli's carefully and I'm sure have similar IT skills.......................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 21:33
  #11694 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 277
That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest! Working there last century they seemed to have studied all the mistakes from 1942 and didn't plan on repeating them.
Bing is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2019, 14:41
  #11695 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,014
Can F-35 hit programme targets in 2019?

In Flight Global:-

As years go, 2018 was about as good as it gets when casting a historical eye at the various trials and tribulations which have affected - and at times afflicted - the Lockheed Martin F-35 over the past decade or so.

First Israel, then the US Marine Corps used the fifth-generation type in anger for the first time, striking ground targets in the Middle East. Then, as the year drew to a close, Italy and the UK each declared reaching initial operational capability with the fighter. A protracted, 11-year system development and demonstration phase was at last wrapped up, and successful landing trials were also conducted aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Potential order boosts were hinted at by existing recipients Japan and the Netherlands, and Belgium also opted to advance discussions to buy the A-model jet as a successor for its long-serving Lockheed F-16s. All good news for a programme which will stand or fall on the volume and longevity of its production run.

There were of course setbacks, including a brief suspension of deliveries to the US Air Force amid a dispute over corrosion repair costs, a first-ever crash, involving a USMC F-35B, and the heating up of a simmering spat with Turkey over Ankara's parallel procurement of the Lightning II and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems. Still to be resolved, this issue could impact Washington's plans to deliver an eventual 100 new aircraft to its NATO ally.

Meanwhile, a record 91 deliveries were also made, from Fort Worth in Texas and national final assembly and check-out lines in Italy and Japan: an impressive rise from the 66 examples transferred in 2018 and 46 the year before. Unit prices also continued to fall, as promised.



US Air Force

The challenge now facing Lockheed is to repeat this achievement as output jumps by a further 40%, to at least 130 aircraft during 2019.

After eight years of production deliveries, the coming 12 months will provide the sternest test yet for Lockheed, its manufacturing partners BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, and countless other companies throughout its sprawling supply chain for the Lightning II. Success should keep the programme on a path to delivering an $80 million F-35A from 2020, but any fresh turbulence could deter additional prospective buyers, and offer encouragement to rival producers such as Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter and Saab.

Outside the three US services, which our data shows have a combined 264 F-35s in active use, nine other nations have now taken delivery of the type, boosting the global inventory beyond 350. While the Lightning II has at times polarised opinion and perhaps still has more than its fair share of detractors, it is rapidly growing in not only capability, but also operational relevance to the countries which have invested so heavily in it.

Lockheed's ability to keep the programme on target has never been more important.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2019, 14:44
  #11696 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 72
Posts: 1,014
ANALYSIS: F-35 production ready to soar in 2019

Another Flight Global article on the F-35.

Brief snip from the article:-
Production of the F-35 Lightning II is on course to make its latest rate rise this year, after Lockheed Martin met its contractual target to deliver 91 of the fifth-generation fighter during 2018.

Detailing last year's delivery total, Lockheed says a combined 54 aircraft were handed over to the US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Navy, while 21 went to partner nations. The remaining 16 were shipped to Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme customers.

Lockheed has hailed its achievement of the 2018 delivery target as "demonstrating the F-35 enterprise's ability to ramp up to full-rate production". "Year-over-year, we have increased production, lowered costs, reduced build time, and improved quality and on-time deliveries," notes Greg Ulmer, the company's general manager of the F-35 programme.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 12:20
  #11697 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,519
"Year-over-year, we have increased production, lowered costs, reduced build time, and improved quality and on-time deliveries," notes Greg Ulmer, the company's general manager of the F-35 programme.

You want a cookie for that? These are all things that an LRIP process was invented to address.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2019, 11:50
  #11698 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,519
Apparently, "recusal" doesn't mean you don't let your views be known....

In his first press conference since assuming the role of acting secretary of defense, Shanahan called concerns about him favoring Boeing "just noise."

"I am biased towards performance," he said. "I am biased towards giving the taxpayer their money's worth. The F-35, unequivocally I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance."

https://www.investors.com/news/secre...oops-colombia/
LowObservable is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2019, 07:35
  #11699 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,009
I presume our F-35Bs will have the same airframe lives???????

https://about.bgov.com/blog/stagnant...jets-pentagon/

(Bloomberg) — Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps “is well under” expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; “may be as low as 2,100″ hours Pentagon test office says in 2018 annual report obtained by Bloomberg that’s scheduled for release this week. That means some jets expected to start hitting service life limit in 2026.

Furthermore, there’s no “improving trend in” aircraft availability to fly training or combat missions as it’s remained “flat” over the past 3 years.

Details come a day after Defense Sec. Pat Shanahan told reporters the F-35 “has a lot of opportunity for more performance.”
  • Interim reliability and field maintenance metrics to meeting planned 80% goal not being met, test office director Robert Behler says in new assessment as improvements “are still not translating into improved availability”.
    • Current fleet performance “well below” that benchmark.
    • Cybersecurity testing of aircraft in 2018 showed some previous vulnerabilities “still have not been remedied,”assessment says.
    • Amount of time needed to repair aircraft and return to flying status “has changed little” in last year; remains “higher than” rate needed to indicate progress as aircraft fleet numbers and flying hours increase, assessment says.
    • Computerized maintenance tool known as “ALIS” doesn’t “yet perform as intended,” as some data and functions deficiencies “have a significant effect on aircraft availability” and launching flights.
    • Maintenance personnel, pilots “must deal with pervasive problems with data integrity, completeness on a daily basis,” tester says.
    • Testing through September of Air Force model gun intended for air-to-ground attack indicates accuracy “unacceptable,” DoD tester says.
ORAC is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2019, 12:28
  #11700 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 1,863
Well on a brighter note, if any F-35B pilot ever achieves 2000hrs they can probably be given an aircraft rather than a badge.
Just This Once... 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.