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 14th Nov 2019, 19:09
  #12041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West of Suez
Posts: 254
Talking

Originally Posted by Treble one View Post
'Dutch Air Force Chief gets far too excited over his new toy'.

It was most remiss of me to not declare the winner sooner.

Treble One wins for his post. I had considered a similar opener, but bottled out.
AnglianAV8R is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 19:12
  #12042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West of Suez
Posts: 254
Originally Posted by airsound View Post
Explaining why he's suspending operational testing until next summer, Robert Behler, Director of IOT&E (Initial Operational Test and Evaluation), says
So, if we take that alongside the idea from Australia that the whole thing may become useless after 2030, it seems as if we have the most expensive weapons system ever produced, which will actually be in productive service for less than 10 years.
airsound
Which confirms that the F35 is an outright success on a scale that is likely to remain unsurpassed. It has exceeded all design objectives, particularly that of being a sink hole for money.


AnglianAV8R is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 19:13
  #12043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Have we all gone completely barmy?

Airsound

No doubt all those "jobs" and industrial offsets are "good value" as you will no doubt shortly be informed.
However the fact that 72% of the UK's total buy are not upgradeable to the final "base" wargoing standard should tell you all you need to know about "good value".

PS have they started to introduce external fuel carriage alongside finding a magic cure for chronically short fatigue life.
weemonkey is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 04:10
  #12044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: au
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg View Post
An extraordinary "shopping list" likely to include the B21 Raider and ABM technology. This, after our JSF purchase, required an expensive government intervention and purchase of an interim fighter and a change of mind on needing Growlers to escort JSF. The interim Super Hornet purchase and the unexpected Growler buy, were both deemed unnecessary at early stages by RAAF chiefs.

You have to ask, what's wrong with RAAF leadership? If we are going to be equipped to fight China there's a lot more than big ticket items required. Look at Taiwan for example. Air base hardening and force dispersal. I think the taxpaying public would like to see a more pragmatic RAAF first, before asking for billion dollar bombers!
That article is a load of toss, that the F-35 is obsolete by 2030. ADF/Gov. aren't considering a dedicated bomber. It is wrong on many issues Including as you said, that the super Hornet wasn't to supplement the Legacy Hornets as a gap filler, because of F-35 delays. It was a political decision only, to replace the F-111 that retired. The RAAF made statements in parliament that the Super Hornet acquisition wasn't needed and the F-111 fleet could be retired without major risk.

Last edited by golder; 15th Nov 2019 at 04:35.
golder is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2019, 06:14
  #12045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,750
The ex- Chiefs are both quoted as saying Australia may need to invest in a strategic bomber - which suggests the B21. May not be the RAAF's public position, but I'd imagine the rapid strategic upheaval and Australia's submarine fiasco, presents an emerging case for more long range firepower.

But as I mentioned above, there's pressing priorities beyond big ticket shopping lists, if China is imposing itself in Australia's part of the Pacific.
Gnadenburg is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2019, 18:44
  #12046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dorset,UK
Posts: 373
Sunday Express did an article on the new carrier today. Describing the F-35 that will fly from it they reported that the F-35 has a max speed of mach 6 !!
Is this correct? Or just another journo who has not bothered to check his facts?
Compass Call is online now  
Old 17th Nov 2019, 21:36
  #12047 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,067
F-35 Demo Seen from Sunrise Mountain

ORAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2019, 16:46
  #12048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 730
If one UK Carrier were equipped with the F35 and the other had the Russian S400 SAM system on its deck which would be the more effective airspace denial weapon?

Nothing fancy by way of integration just a landline from the S400 control cabin into the ships Ops Centre.
Bigpants is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2019, 17:31
  #12049 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,067
Without a complete redesign to cope with a moving datum and a radar rolling and pitching with no data correction for guidance - the S400 would merely be deck cargo.

Then there is the issue that it designed to rearmed from trucks with special loaders - which won’t be present. It will also immediately start to degrade from the salt laden atmosphere, for which it is not designed.

Finally, of course, everything on a ship, including the bomb and missiles warheads , are designed to burn harmlessly in a shipboard fire rather than explode - and I doubt the relevant design work and tests were done for the S-400. So any sensible Captain wouldn’t allow them in his ship.
ORAC is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2019, 22:22
  #12050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 239
Probably not the one that got sunk by a submarine on day three out of port
SARF is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2019, 01:09
  #12051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
F-35 Demo Seen from Sunrise Mountain
Is the orange light at the back to let everyone know it's not in stealth mode?
weemonkey is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2019, 08:13
  #12052 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,067
I thought it was a pilot light, showing the gas was on....
ORAC is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2019, 11:17
  #12053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: London
Posts: 278
Originally Posted by Bigpants View Post
If one UK Carrier were equipped with the F35 and the other had the Russian S400 SAM system on its deck which would be the more effective airspace denial weapon?

Nothing fancy by way of integration just a landline from the S400 control cabin into the ships Ops Centre.
Isn't most of that capability (and a lot more) provided by the Type 45 Destroyer(s) that will presumably be deployed alongside the carrier?
pasta is online now  
Old 19th Nov 2019, 12:16
  #12054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by SARF View Post
Probably not the one that got sunk by a submarine on day three out of port
The Russians don't use submarines to disable carriers. They just drop a crane on them.

What's big as a house, burns 20 liters of fuel every hour, puts out a shitload of smoke and noise and cuts an apple into three pieces?
A Soviet machine made to cut apples into four pieces.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 11:57
  #12055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 730
I was suggesting that a SAM system on a ship is a more effective 24/7 air defence or airspace denial weapon than an F35.

I appreciate re the point above that one cannot bolt an S400 to a ship and expect it to work but there are some very effective marine SAM systems out there.

Nothing to stop an aircraft carrier using its own ASW helicopters plus its defensive screen including our own submarines to avoid the threat from enemy submarines.

I feel the F35 at sea is all about its ability to strike at the enemy which brings me back to the issue of cost effectiveness hence remain sceptical about the aircraft and choice of platform.

I would scrap/sell the carriers because we have not the means ($) to militarily deploy them and the UK's appetite for foreign adventures with the USA long gone.
Bigpants is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 14:22
  #12056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 749
Originally Posted by Bigpants View Post
I was suggesting that a SAM system on a ship is a more effective 24/7 air defence or airspace denial weapon than an F35.

I appreciate re the point above that one cannot bolt an S400 to a ship and expect it to work but there are some very effective marine SAM systems out there.
One of the principles of layered defence of any maritime force is that it makes much more sense to take out the archer(s) beyond shooting range than have to deal with all his/their arrows at closer range with shorter reaction times. What few leakers remain can then be handled by ASMD hard and soft kill measures and CIWS. That’s what the Type 45s are all about.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 14:55
  #12057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 294
Problem is the F-35 sacrifices range for stealth.

Nothing wrong with that but it means a USN Carrier Group has to get a lot closer tho' the bad guys than they did 30 years ago - or invest even more in refueling and drones.

In 1976 the average range of a carrier airwing was around 950 miles - an F-35 has a range of around 680/700 miles
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 23:36
  #12058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by Bigpants View Post
the UK's appetite for foreign adventures with the USA long gone.
Apparently not !

AOC 1 Gp has just been discussing Carrier Strike Group Ops in San Diego - including the joint deployment with USMC F-35Bs embarked in 2021.
"A great 2 days spent at NAS North Island with our @USNavy and @USMC colleagues continuing with plans towards our joint Carrier Strike deployment on @HMSQNLZ in 2021. Thanks to our brilliant hosts and to the teams that have been doing great work to bring the whole effort together"


Right now there is a US / UK Defense Conference taking place on HMS QNLZ

"This ship reflects the future... the Atlantic Future Forum exists to deepen the unique Defence and technology relationship between the US and UK” -- Admiral Tony Radakin CB ADC, First Sea Lord & Chief of the Naval Staff"


There has also been a trilateral agreement just signed between US, UK and Japan

USN CNO "By signing this Trilateral agreement we strengthen our naval bonds & codify our continued dedication to a free & open maritime commons. There is much to celebrate in our trilateral relationship; indeed the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 08:26
  #12059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,488



The 3 admirals remind me so much of a certain sketch from The Frost Report of 1966:

BEagle is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 19:54
  #12060 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 874
Forgive me if this has been covered - I havenít seen it - but what happens when the (singular) engine fails during a shipborne ski-jump take-off? How is that planned for and handled? Is there, for instance, some equivalent for the V1 of a conventional runway take-off?

airsound
airsound 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.