F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
KenV,
Highball was anti-shipping. A smaller ball shaped bomb carried in the UK by the Mosquito.
Same basic principle of a spinning bomb as for the dams, to drive itself downwards, but in the case of Highball it was designed to rotate down to the keel and, on the fuse detecting it had reached the bottom and descent had stopped, to detonate and act in the same way as a torpedo - blast to lift the hull and create a void so that the ship would break its back as it came down again with only support at the bow and stern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCGpzRzY7fY
Yikes. Under two seconds from weapon release to water impact. That seems much lower than any of the Lancaster or Mosquito releases. What did they think was going to happen?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought I would dip my toe into the toxic world of writing about the F-35 
The F-35B is worth it, but - Think Defence
The F-35B is worth it, but - Think Defence
Last edited by Think Defence; 12th Aug 2015 at 20:55.
Thought I would dip my toe into the toxic world of writing about the F-35
The F-35B is worth it, but - Think Defence
The F-35B is worth it, but - Think Defence
Yet to be discovered tribes in the middle of the Amazonian rain forest could not have failed to notice the untrammelled hype that surrounds the F-35 in general, and the STOVL F35B in particular.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, from my perspective you are more on the money than any article on F-35 for UK that I've read, and for a very long time. For that you should be congratulated and I applaud your insight, analysis and balance.
Thanks for a good read!
Thanks for a good read!
Which reminds me - the AMK / EFEM mods for Typhoon look like a bit of a no brainer in terms of the performance uplift they offer - but I'm not sure they're yet part of the approved / funded upgrade path. On the face of it the cost/benefit case ought to be fairly compelling, so any views on the prospects for this package?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, thanks for a great article. Loved it.
I'd like to discuss further the whole concept of F-35 concurrent development. It has without doubt proven to be enormously expensive and disruptive to the F-35 schedule. But the alternative appears to be even more expensive and require even more time. Take the F-16, for example. The A/B model was a great day fighter with no BVR capability and very limited air-to-ground capability. How many A/Bs were built at great expense just so they could end up in the bone yard when the C/D was developed? How long and how much money did it take for the A/B to be developed into the definitive C/D?
The F-15 had a similar development cycle with A/Bs relegated to the boneyard and the C/D being the definitive version of that aircraft. (Followed later by the E. And later still by the SA, K, and SE.) And Gripen followed a similar path with the C/D being the definitive version of that aircraft and the E now completing development.
Typhoon followed a similar development path. Tranche 1 aircraft were limited in capability and RAF seemingly can't wait to get rid of them and no one apparently wanting to buy them even at ridiculously discounted prices. Will they end up in a boneyard, or will they just be cut up and turned into beer cans? Would it have been "cheaper and faster" to skip the Tranche 1s and go directly to the Tranches 2s? That effectively appears to be what they are trying to do with the F-35. The operative word there is trying. We still don't know if they'll be successful, but the signs are positive.
The bottom line is that if we look at the TOTAL cost and time to develop the definitive version of the jet, F-35 may not be all that bad and may even prove to be a great success, concurrent engineering and all. With heavy emphasis on "may." We're clearly still learning how to do all this.
I'd like to discuss further the whole concept of F-35 concurrent development. It has without doubt proven to be enormously expensive and disruptive to the F-35 schedule. But the alternative appears to be even more expensive and require even more time. Take the F-16, for example. The A/B model was a great day fighter with no BVR capability and very limited air-to-ground capability. How many A/Bs were built at great expense just so they could end up in the bone yard when the C/D was developed? How long and how much money did it take for the A/B to be developed into the definitive C/D?
The F-15 had a similar development cycle with A/Bs relegated to the boneyard and the C/D being the definitive version of that aircraft. (Followed later by the E. And later still by the SA, K, and SE.) And Gripen followed a similar path with the C/D being the definitive version of that aircraft and the E now completing development.
Typhoon followed a similar development path. Tranche 1 aircraft were limited in capability and RAF seemingly can't wait to get rid of them and no one apparently wanting to buy them even at ridiculously discounted prices. Will they end up in a boneyard, or will they just be cut up and turned into beer cans? Would it have been "cheaper and faster" to skip the Tranche 1s and go directly to the Tranches 2s? That effectively appears to be what they are trying to do with the F-35. The operative word there is trying. We still don't know if they'll be successful, but the signs are positive.
The bottom line is that if we look at the TOTAL cost and time to develop the definitive version of the jet, F-35 may not be all that bad and may even prove to be a great success, concurrent engineering and all. With heavy emphasis on "may." We're clearly still learning how to do all this.
I'm not sure the F-16 analogy holds true. There are still F-16s in service that were built in the 1970's that have gone through a midlife update with capability enhancements that exceed the original F-16C.
The F-16C did not replace USAF F-16As on a one-for-one replacement either as the early F-16Cs replaced other types first. Force reduction measures had a heavy hand in delivering F-16As to the boneyard or to see them exported to other countries.
The F-16C did not replace USAF F-16As on a one-for-one replacement either as the early F-16Cs replaced other types first. Force reduction measures had a heavy hand in delivering F-16As to the boneyard or to see them exported to other countries.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure the F-16 analogy holds true. There are still F-16s in service that were built in the 1970's that have gone through a midlife update with capability enhancements that exceed the original F-16C.
Gen III HMD
Just saw the media announcement celebrating the latest release of the HMD.
Been speaking to some fighter pilots with some knowledge of the program and hear concerns about having room to turn one's head to desired angles etc., plus weight/mass, pulling G's and so on. All factoring into the ability to stay aware and maneuver the jet. I suppose the latest version has reduced the issues with display dynamics.
Been speaking to some fighter pilots with some knowledge of the program and hear concerns about having room to turn one's head to desired angles etc., plus weight/mass, pulling G's and so on. All factoring into the ability to stay aware and maneuver the jet. I suppose the latest version has reduced the issues with display dynamics.
As JTO says, even the early F-16A/Bs were able to be upgraded into very effective aircraft, using newer technology than the initial F-16C/Ds.
Hype about "they can't get rid of them fast enough" is an inaccurate way to describe the UK Typhoon history. The fact is that the 1998 production contracts were only marginally smaller than the Cold War figures originally envisaged, and don't reflect today's force numbers, while the contractual structure makes it very difficult to cancel later aircraft, and easier to retire older ones.
The future of the F-35 is likely to be more like that of the F-22, with slow, expensive and marginal upgrades aside from catching up with the state of the art in weapons technology.
Hype about "they can't get rid of them fast enough" is an inaccurate way to describe the UK Typhoon history. The fact is that the 1998 production contracts were only marginally smaller than the Cold War figures originally envisaged, and don't reflect today's force numbers, while the contractual structure makes it very difficult to cancel later aircraft, and easier to retire older ones.
The future of the F-35 is likely to be more like that of the F-22, with slow, expensive and marginal upgrades aside from catching up with the state of the art in weapons technology.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$400,000 a bone dome 
Rockwell Delivers First Gen 3 Helmet for F-35
Rockwell Delivers First Gen 3 Helmet for F-35
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy May Cut F-35 Orders As Buying Plan Is Reviewed.
BY GILLIAN RICH, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
08/13/2015 02:21 PM ET
The Navy may only order as few as 12 of the F-35C variants each year vs. the current plan to order 20 of the stealth jets annually during the 2020s.
"I think the current realities of the budget and other priories inside the Navy may drive something between those two numbers, but we're still on the path to (initial operational capability) for our first squadron in 2018," said Naval Air Forces Commander Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, at the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday, according to Flightglobal.
BY GILLIAN RICH, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
08/13/2015 02:21 PM ET
The Navy may only order as few as 12 of the F-35C variants each year vs. the current plan to order 20 of the stealth jets annually during the 2020s.
"I think the current realities of the budget and other priories inside the Navy may drive something between those two numbers, but we're still on the path to (initial operational capability) for our first squadron in 2018," said Naval Air Forces Commander Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, at the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies on Wednesday, according to Flightglobal.
&
US Navy considers reduced annual F-35C buy - 8/13/2015 - Flight Global
As I said in 2012...
What's gradually changing is that, a couple of years ago, to talk too loudly about whether Hornet/Growler is a better investment for the Navy, at least for the next 10-15 years, was not career-enhancing. Now that a lot of Hornet/Growler people are rising to flag rank, it's different.
From this post: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post7526946
By the later 2020s, SLEPed Rhinos will be the most numerous type in the fleet.
What's gradually changing is that, a couple of years ago, to talk too loudly about whether Hornet/Growler is a better investment for the Navy, at least for the next 10-15 years, was not career-enhancing. Now that a lot of Hornet/Growler people are rising to flag rank, it's different.
From this post: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post7526946
By the later 2020s, SLEPed Rhinos will be the most numerous type in the fleet.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$400,000 a bone dome Rockwell Delivers First Gen 3 Helmet for F-35
Rockwell Delivers First Gen 3 Helmet for F-35You have to hope that the capabilities don't come at an increased risk to the operators health... short or long term..
Do you get a free bowl of soup with that hat?
