F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's all this obsession about being close-in for a kill shot? I'd wanna kill someone as far away as I could, frankly. Probably why the Brits will be using METEOR over AMRAAM.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MSOCS:
he is (and it is purely my opinion) way behind the doctrine and rudiments of modern combat in much the same way as Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't "get" the smart phone.
he is (and it is purely my opinion) way behind the doctrine and rudiments of modern combat in much the same way as Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't "get" the smart phone.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. There's plenty of data already. Plenty. It's just not in the public domain. And won't be. Ever.
Going back to my point, Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does. This is the rudiment of his argument every time he's wheeled out as a talking head and it's the concept and doctrinal part I'm referring to, not the reality (or otherwise) of what F-35 can do today, or may do in future. Like having your grandpa tell you that you still need horses on the modern battlefield.
Going back to my point, Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does. This is the rudiment of his argument every time he's wheeled out as a talking head and it's the concept and doctrinal part I'm referring to, not the reality (or otherwise) of what F-35 can do today, or may do in future. Like having your grandpa tell you that you still need horses on the modern battlefield.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS > "Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does."
Apparently asserting that a Banana will do what Apples and Oranges do much better than either one is acceptable as long as its a 5th gen Banana with secret abilities..
Seems like a weak place to start any assertion.
Apparently asserting that a Banana will do what Apples and Oranges do much better than either one is acceptable as long as its a 5th gen Banana with secret abilities..
Seems like a weak place to start any assertion.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS > "Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does."
Apparently asserting that a Banana will do what Apples and Oranges do much better than either one is acceptable as long as its a 5th gen Banana with secret abilities..
Seems like a weak place to start any assertion.
Apparently asserting that a Banana will do what Apples and Oranges do much better than either one is acceptable as long as its a 5th gen Banana with secret abilities..
Seems like a weak place to start any assertion.
But your grandpa helped lead a movement that reversed the push towards ever bigger and more powerful airplanes with Mach 2+ capability that they never used, resulting in products that went from two pairs of prototypes to 5000+ Vipers and Hornets, and that were in service and fighting wars in less time than it took to fly a production-standard JSF.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS,
All that data you mention (plenty of it) is the short comings of the F-35s (plural). What is in the public domain and will be for a long time is the positive spin in the form of joint advertising by L-M & US DoD... Sprey is correct. The blended combination of a lemon, lime and pineapple (F-35s) will never be as good a singularly designed fruit, the apple (F-16). That's why God designed separate fruit in the first place! 
Original postings by MSOCS: "Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does. "There's plenty of data already. Plenty. It's just not in the public domain. And won't be. Ever.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even given the current capability briefs concerning F-35, the idea that a retreating aircraft can target a trailing threat, let alone out-range a straight stern shot is ridiculous. F-35 and all its wonders does not change missile kinematics.
Sorry I didn't take the time to see who was claiming that, but it might be reasonable to expect an explanation about how that might work.
Sorry I didn't take the time to see who was claiming that, but it might be reasonable to expect an explanation about how that might work.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the F-22, the F-35 can maneuver right in there and attack with a close-in kill shot without playing chicken. If the F-35 gets in a bad situation, the pilot can extract himself a heck of a lot easier than in an F-15. The F-35 can turn away and still attack because it has eyes in the back of its head coupled with high off boresight missiles.
-RP
And the weakness in the argument is that unless it is in non-stealth mode the F-35 does not have HOBS missiles. AMRAAM is ill suited to that role due to seeker field of regard limits, and lack of either vectored thrust or powerful aero effectors.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and that makes Toes wrong? Just because the quote's in sld?
There are plenty of journos and talking heads paid to do the opposite when it comes to F-35 PR, so it works both ways fella! It's alleged that some such journos and talking heads frequent this forum.
Care to prove categorically that the capability Toes speaks of doesn't exist? I've known him quite a few years and he isn't a liar.
There are plenty of journos and talking heads paid to do the opposite when it comes to F-35 PR, so it works both ways fella! It's alleged that some such journos and talking heads frequent this forum.
Care to prove categorically that the capability Toes speaks of doesn't exist? I've known him quite a few years and he isn't a liar.
The capabilities that Bartos speaks of May exist IF there are HOBS missiles on board, but as far as anyone knows these are only carried externally, and I have never heard anyone claim otherwise.
On the other hand...
"There are plenty of journos ...paid to do the opposite"
If this means, "paid to denigrate the F-35", I would suggest that you should provide some evidence of this statement, which you cannot, because it is a big fat lie.
On the other hand...
"There are plenty of journos ...paid to do the opposite"
If this means, "paid to denigrate the F-35", I would suggest that you should provide some evidence of this statement, which you cannot, because it is a big fat lie.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahh, the old paper bag cash for comment..or perhaps a advisory payment or whatever they are calling it these days?
when was the last time sweetman bagged Boeing and Saab? the shornet was a pig one day and a super star the next. the stuff that went on with the refueler was unreported.
perhaps I can chime in here, RAAF is on record of saying they want new missiles for the f-35, the aim-120d may not be the standard missile. As to whether it is 6 or 12/htk internal missiles, only time will tell. But it will be a 360 deg kill zone. as the aim-120d is.
when was the last time sweetman bagged Boeing and Saab? the shornet was a pig one day and a super star the next. the stuff that went on with the refueler was unreported.
perhaps I can chime in here, RAAF is on record of saying they want new missiles for the f-35, the aim-120d may not be the standard missile. As to whether it is 6 or 12/htk internal missiles, only time will tell. But it will be a 360 deg kill zone. as the aim-120d is.
Last edited by a1bill; 29th Feb 2016 at 06:00.
ahh, the old paper bag cash for comment..or perhaps a advisory payment or whatever they are calling it these days?
when was the last time sweetman bagged Boeing and Saab? the shornet was a pig one day and a super star the next. the stuff that went on with the refueler was unreported.
when was the last time sweetman bagged Boeing and Saab? the shornet was a pig one day and a super star the next. the stuff that went on with the refueler was unreported.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you're right, there is no such thing as cash for comment, the very thing sweetman accuses another journo and web sites with. LMFAO
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...for+comment%22
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sour...for+comment%22
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Israel reconsidering 2008 purchase of U.S. jets
A welcome decision made back in 2008 to purchase U.S.-made Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets no longer appears very attractive in 2016 – and Israel is considering backtracking on it.
So say Israeli government sources quoted by Middle East Newsline (MENL).
For one thing, the much-touted JSF has some inherent flaws, such as inadequate range, weapons payload and stealth capability. In addition, the Americans refuse to share the JSF source code with Israel. Israel would not be able to modify the platform to fit its needs, and would have to send damaged engines to Turkey or the U.S. for repairs.
According to the sources, some Israeli Cabinet members say the state-of-the-art version of the F-35 jet is outright "flawed." Israel could find itself "increasingly dependent" on a fighter-jet that has been rejected by most NATO air forces, the sources say.
Until the JSF reaches its full potential, a highly-placed source said, "we will have dozens of very expensive aircraft with limited capabilities."
Back in September 2008, the U.S. Defense Department approved the sale of 25 F-35 stealth-enabled Joint Strike Fighters to Israel's air force. The $15.2 billion deal included an option to buy 50 additional bombers in ensuing years.
Israel was particularly interested in the plane because of its short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities. It was assumed that in war-time, Israeli bases and runways were liable to be heavily targeted by enemy missiles, rendering them all but unusable. The F-35B, with its ability to hover, land vertically, and take off vertically with a light load, would be invaluable under such circumstances. In addition, it needs only a few hundred feet of runway to take off when fully-loaded.
Even back then, however, manufacturer Lockheed-Martin faced claims that the jet performed poorly in tests and combat simulations. The company insisted that the JSF was the most advanced fighter of its class available.
Israel is currently expecting 33 F-35A jets, to arrive in two batches. The first aircraft are expected to arrive by 2017. Over 20 of them were supposed to have arrived last year, but the order was reduced to 14 by a government panel headed by Energy Minister Yuval Shteinitz. Seventeen F-35's are still on order for 2017, and the Israel Air Force continues to push for even more to arrive by 2020.
The Netanyahu government has urged Washington to sell Israel the advanced F-15 fighter-jet that has been approved for Saudi Arabia. But the Obama Administration has refused, presenting the JSF as the only platform available for Israeli purchase with the more than $3 billion a year it receives in American aid.
A second source quoted by MENL says the "overall feeling [among Cabinet members] is that Israel can't continue on this path and needs proven combat platforms." The sources added that Israel would end paying a "strategic price" for "procuring, operating, and training for 50 inadequate aircraft."
A welcome decision made back in 2008 to purchase U.S.-made Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets no longer appears very attractive in 2016 – and Israel is considering backtracking on it.
So say Israeli government sources quoted by Middle East Newsline (MENL).
For one thing, the much-touted JSF has some inherent flaws, such as inadequate range, weapons payload and stealth capability. In addition, the Americans refuse to share the JSF source code with Israel. Israel would not be able to modify the platform to fit its needs, and would have to send damaged engines to Turkey or the U.S. for repairs.
According to the sources, some Israeli Cabinet members say the state-of-the-art version of the F-35 jet is outright "flawed." Israel could find itself "increasingly dependent" on a fighter-jet that has been rejected by most NATO air forces, the sources say.
Until the JSF reaches its full potential, a highly-placed source said, "we will have dozens of very expensive aircraft with limited capabilities."
Back in September 2008, the U.S. Defense Department approved the sale of 25 F-35 stealth-enabled Joint Strike Fighters to Israel's air force. The $15.2 billion deal included an option to buy 50 additional bombers in ensuing years.
Israel was particularly interested in the plane because of its short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities. It was assumed that in war-time, Israeli bases and runways were liable to be heavily targeted by enemy missiles, rendering them all but unusable. The F-35B, with its ability to hover, land vertically, and take off vertically with a light load, would be invaluable under such circumstances. In addition, it needs only a few hundred feet of runway to take off when fully-loaded.
Even back then, however, manufacturer Lockheed-Martin faced claims that the jet performed poorly in tests and combat simulations. The company insisted that the JSF was the most advanced fighter of its class available.
Israel is currently expecting 33 F-35A jets, to arrive in two batches. The first aircraft are expected to arrive by 2017. Over 20 of them were supposed to have arrived last year, but the order was reduced to 14 by a government panel headed by Energy Minister Yuval Shteinitz. Seventeen F-35's are still on order for 2017, and the Israel Air Force continues to push for even more to arrive by 2020.
The Netanyahu government has urged Washington to sell Israel the advanced F-15 fighter-jet that has been approved for Saudi Arabia. But the Obama Administration has refused, presenting the JSF as the only platform available for Israeli purchase with the more than $3 billion a year it receives in American aid.
A second source quoted by MENL says the "overall feeling [among Cabinet members] is that Israel can't continue on this path and needs proven combat platforms." The sources added that Israel would end paying a "strategic price" for "procuring, operating, and training for 50 inadequate aircraft."
Israel has been banging on about range and payload since the inception of the program. Its desire for an advanced version of the F-15 also predates the Saudi purchase (NB the F-16I). The release of the advanced configuration of the F-15 to Saudi just rubbed salt into their wounds. in their eyes they have a demonstrable need to fly large distances, with a large payload, in a self-escorting fighter.
Of course when the Israelis talk about buying stuff they tend to gloss over where the money comes from.
Of course when the Israelis talk about buying stuff they tend to gloss over where the money comes from.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
Most NATO countries didn't buy the F-16 either so that must also be a complete and utter failure by the same argument? How odd!
$3Bn a year in aid....perhaps they enjoy biting the hand that feeds them.
on a fighter-jet that has been rejected by most NATO air forces
$3Bn a year in aid....perhaps they enjoy biting the hand that feeds them.