Why is the RAF buying the F-35?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I checked no one was trying to convince the French to buy F-35.
It's not an endless black hole. The airplane has over 1000 hours of flight test on it. Previous cost estimates have all been based on powerpoint, but current estimates are based on the real world and a growing body of evidence. So they're becoming higher fidelity and increasingly believable.
If you want to take your flight of Rafales into an S-400 missile engagement zone (S-400 SA-20 Triumf - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces if you don't understand the buzzword) alone and unafraid, crack on. I'd rather be in an F-35 thanks very much.
A British MP rather famously pronounced the demise of manned fighters in 1957. Fifty+ years later, we're still waiting.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
It's not an endless black hole. The airplane has over 1000 hours of flight test on it. Previous cost estimates have all been based on powerpoint, but current estimates are based on the real world and a growing body of evidence. So they're becoming higher fidelity and increasingly believable.
If you want to take your flight of Rafales into an S-400 missile engagement zone (S-400 SA-20 Triumf - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces if you don't understand the buzzword) alone and unafraid, crack on. I'd rather be in an F-35 thanks very much.
A British MP rather famously pronounced the demise of manned fighters in 1957. Fifty+ years later, we're still waiting.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF
It's worth pointing out that Duncan Sandys MP, as then Minister of Defence and author of the 1957 White Paper, decided to put his faith in technology but in the form of Missiles. They could not deliver.
Will the F-35 will do the job as advertised, and be affordable, on time and available in the numbers needed to ensure credible Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm usage?
It's worth pointing out that Duncan Sandys MP, as then Minister of Defence and author of the 1957 White Paper, decided to put his faith in technology but in the form of Missiles. They could not deliver.
Will the F-35 will do the job as advertised, and be affordable, on time and available in the numbers needed to ensure credible Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm usage?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I checked no one was trying to convince the French to buy F-35.
but I know they'd rather chew their balls rather than admit it...
It's not an endless black hole. The airplane has over 1000 hours of flight test on it. Previous cost estimates have all been based on powerpoint, but current estimates are based on the real world and a growing body of evidence. So they're becoming higher fidelity and increasingly believable.
If you want to take your flight of Rafales into an S-400 missile engagement zone (S-400 SA-20 Triumf - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces if you don't understand the buzzword) alone and unafraid, crack on. I'd rather be in an F-35 thanks very much.
Again... if it is such a sure bet...
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
draken55,
A fine question, and only time will tell.
The USAF and USMC have gone 'all-in' on the F-35 Program - do you think they'll let it fail? If I were a betting man, I'd say not. With my polarized view of things, the internet's immense community of relatively ignorant F-35-bashers are akin to all the F-16-bashers of the early 1970s. Personally I think people made the right decision in proceeding with the F-16 program in the face of strong criticism over its cost growth, and in my opinion they're making the right decision to press on with F-35 now.
The LRIP1 aircraft are already flying. If the UK government really wanted the F-35 in Service asap, I'm pretty sure LM would take their money today and we could have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years. If the UK government chooses to spend their money on the NHS and welfare for the next 10 years that's their decision, but it's not a failing of the F-35 Program.
Affordability is a completely subjective criterion that every country will have to decide for itself. In my opinion there are a number of scenarios in which you can't afford to not have some F-35s up your sleeve.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
A fine question, and only time will tell.
The USAF and USMC have gone 'all-in' on the F-35 Program - do you think they'll let it fail? If I were a betting man, I'd say not. With my polarized view of things, the internet's immense community of relatively ignorant F-35-bashers are akin to all the F-16-bashers of the early 1970s. Personally I think people made the right decision in proceeding with the F-16 program in the face of strong criticism over its cost growth, and in my opinion they're making the right decision to press on with F-35 now.
The LRIP1 aircraft are already flying. If the UK government really wanted the F-35 in Service asap, I'm pretty sure LM would take their money today and we could have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years. If the UK government chooses to spend their money on the NHS and welfare for the next 10 years that's their decision, but it's not a failing of the F-35 Program.
Affordability is a completely subjective criterion that every country will have to decide for itself. In my opinion there are a number of scenarios in which you can't afford to not have some F-35s up your sleeve.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The LRIP1 aircraft are already flying. If the UK government really wanted the F-35 in Service asap, I'm pretty sure LM would take their money today and we could have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years.
What ORAC said.
Absolutely, seriously no way would you get useful capability in 2014. That's not from the F-35 "bashers" - who by the way have been predicting cost and schedule trends far more accurately than the Fort Worth suits or the JPO munchkins, for the past four years - but from the Technical Baseline Review, the first half-a$$ed-honest insider review of the program in 16 years.
And this "too big to fail" argument is beginning to get old. What "too big to fail" means is what it's always meant: redefine success to match what can actually be achieved. The program has already failed to deliver SDD on schedule, and failed to deliver SDD on cost. The overrun on SDD is in the same order of magnitude as the entire A400M program including 170-plus production airframes.
GAO and Navair have both projected that the program will also fail to deliver on operating costs (which were originally supposed to be lower than F-16, then redefined to equal, but now look a lot higher) and GAO and CAPE have predicted that it will fail on acquisition costs, in the process gutting every other US aircraft program in sight.
Did Gates put the F-35B on probation, and did UK MoD walk away from it and scupper one of its carriers, because they believed what a cranky Anglo-American journalist and three OCD Australian bloggers told them? Or because what they were finally hearing out of TBR was not (by a million miles) the same happy horse**** they'd been fed for the previous decade? Because the TBR said that it was too soon to tell whether or not the F-35B effort would fail to yield a practical airplane at any reasonable price?
Affordability is not a subjective criterion, unless you're Bill Gates buying groceries. Most of the export customers are dealing at best with a fixed budget ceiling. Unit price up, numbers down, until eventually the political leaders ask, quite sensibly, what you plan to do with a force that's so small that you can't deploy with a coalition, maintain homeland defense and sustain the force at the same time. Goodbye air force.
By the way, for the all-wise supporters of the F-35, a lot of the F-16 criticisms of the 1970s were right. It was and is a good design - but what saved it from being another F-5E or F-104 was Moore's Law, which neither critics nor proponents saw coming.
Absolutely, seriously no way would you get useful capability in 2014. That's not from the F-35 "bashers" - who by the way have been predicting cost and schedule trends far more accurately than the Fort Worth suits or the JPO munchkins, for the past four years - but from the Technical Baseline Review, the first half-a$$ed-honest insider review of the program in 16 years.
And this "too big to fail" argument is beginning to get old. What "too big to fail" means is what it's always meant: redefine success to match what can actually be achieved. The program has already failed to deliver SDD on schedule, and failed to deliver SDD on cost. The overrun on SDD is in the same order of magnitude as the entire A400M program including 170-plus production airframes.
GAO and Navair have both projected that the program will also fail to deliver on operating costs (which were originally supposed to be lower than F-16, then redefined to equal, but now look a lot higher) and GAO and CAPE have predicted that it will fail on acquisition costs, in the process gutting every other US aircraft program in sight.
Did Gates put the F-35B on probation, and did UK MoD walk away from it and scupper one of its carriers, because they believed what a cranky Anglo-American journalist and three OCD Australian bloggers told them? Or because what they were finally hearing out of TBR was not (by a million miles) the same happy horse**** they'd been fed for the previous decade? Because the TBR said that it was too soon to tell whether or not the F-35B effort would fail to yield a practical airplane at any reasonable price?
Affordability is not a subjective criterion, unless you're Bill Gates buying groceries. Most of the export customers are dealing at best with a fixed budget ceiling. Unit price up, numbers down, until eventually the political leaders ask, quite sensibly, what you plan to do with a force that's so small that you can't deploy with a coalition, maintain homeland defense and sustain the force at the same time. Goodbye air force.
By the way, for the all-wise supporters of the F-35, a lot of the F-16 criticisms of the 1970s were right. It was and is a good design - but what saved it from being another F-5E or F-104 was Moore's Law, which neither critics nor proponents saw coming.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, before you guys screw yourselves into the ceiling, go back and read what I wrote. I said you could 'have F-35s in RAF/RN markings flying in 2-3 years'. Based on the fact that we signed for our LRIP-3 aircraft mid-09 and they're coming off the line early next year, it's not a huge logical error to assume that if we signed up for LRIP-5 or -6 jets, they'd arrive 2-3 years after contract signing.
They wouldn't be full ORD-compliant Block 3 aircraft, but a Block 2B F-35 is no slouch which is why the USMC say they are content to declare IOC with them. I could write 'succeeded' in bold a few times but it wouldn't change your opinion and I'm afraid you won't change mine. I've flown the airplane a fair bit and I've flown a few others too over the years. I assume I'd know you if you had too. If I were off to war tomorrow I know what my preferred airplane to fly would be.
How can affordability be anything other than subjective? Some people choose to live in a council house and drive a Mercedes, others live in stately homes and drive a Fiat Punto. Some countries choose to spend 3-4% GDP on defence, others choose to spend 1% or less. If the UK envisages a need to operate in airspace defended by the latest Russian, Chinese or French SAM systems or A-A fighters, then it will need to cough up the cash - I don't think the F-35 unit cost is ever going to exceed the annual UK tax intake. If it chooses to spend all its money on the NHS and consequently not be able to afford hundreds of F-35s, that's an entirely subjective choice.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
They wouldn't be full ORD-compliant Block 3 aircraft, but a Block 2B F-35 is no slouch which is why the USMC say they are content to declare IOC with them. I could write 'succeeded' in bold a few times but it wouldn't change your opinion and I'm afraid you won't change mine. I've flown the airplane a fair bit and I've flown a few others too over the years. I assume I'd know you if you had too. If I were off to war tomorrow I know what my preferred airplane to fly would be.
How can affordability be anything other than subjective? Some people choose to live in a council house and drive a Mercedes, others live in stately homes and drive a Fiat Punto. Some countries choose to spend 3-4% GDP on defence, others choose to spend 1% or less. If the UK envisages a need to operate in airspace defended by the latest Russian, Chinese or French SAM systems or A-A fighters, then it will need to cough up the cash - I don't think the F-35 unit cost is ever going to exceed the annual UK tax intake. If it chooses to spend all its money on the NHS and consequently not be able to afford hundreds of F-35s, that's an entirely subjective choice.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully support the decision to purchase Dave-C.
What I don't see the point of is letting the RAF having a go with it, let the Navy have full 'ownership'.
And no, I'm RAF not RN.
What I don't see the point of is letting the RAF having a go with it, let the Navy have full 'ownership'.
And no, I'm RAF not RN.
Seriously, SSSETOWTF, I agree that you could paint any markings you like on an LRIP and get the UK to pay for it.
No, I don't think that it would be a "go-to-war" airplane, and neither (apparently) does Adm Venlet. Hence the actions taken in TBR. Certainly, the USAF appears to be definite in its views of what it takes to declare IOC.
Your comments reflect the attitude of many JSF supporters. Having oversold their ability to deliver, and underbid the price - that is fact, not opinion - they are now arguing that there is no alternative and the punters have no option but to cough up - "I don't think the F-35 unit cost is ever going to exceed the annual UK tax intake" - or see the money spent so far go to waste.
That strikes me as more than a little arrogant.
No, I don't think that it would be a "go-to-war" airplane, and neither (apparently) does Adm Venlet. Hence the actions taken in TBR. Certainly, the USAF appears to be definite in its views of what it takes to declare IOC.
Your comments reflect the attitude of many JSF supporters. Having oversold their ability to deliver, and underbid the price - that is fact, not opinion - they are now arguing that there is no alternative and the punters have no option but to cough up - "I don't think the F-35 unit cost is ever going to exceed the annual UK tax intake" - or see the money spent so far go to waste.
That strikes me as more than a little arrogant.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The constant problem appears to be that the procurement program is always geared up to take on a 1st world military force. What we end up with is a buggered up contract delivering too little gear that usually is second best to off the shelf kit, that was readily available in the first place.
There should be a minimum number of kit required, and we should then purchase according to our budget, and buy off the shelf.(and stay at home and mind our own business)
There should be a minimum number of kit required, and we should then purchase according to our budget, and buy off the shelf.(and stay at home and mind our own business)
SSSETOWTF has it right. If you're going to go up against, effectively, a 'superpower' (China/Russia/USA) that can afford an integrated multiple-battalion SA-20 ADS, then B2/F35/F22 is what you want.
But the lesson that still hasn't been hammered home since the fall of the wall is that our demonstrated need in the last 2 decades has NOT been for this level of capability. Yes, we'd all love to have it, but not at the expense of ridiculously low numbers of platforms.
Complete WAG here, but what are we likely to pay and what are we likely to get? Say £6Bn in procurement & development costs to receive a fleet of 60-70? Say 10-15 FE@R? Effectively no more than 3 deployable sqns? And while I take the point about economic benefit, such an arrangement could be constructed for ANY future procurement, thus the question of underlying cost is relevant, particularly within a constrained Defence funding envelope.
Aston Martins are wonderful cars - but sometimes all you need is a Ford Transit.
But the lesson that still hasn't been hammered home since the fall of the wall is that our demonstrated need in the last 2 decades has NOT been for this level of capability. Yes, we'd all love to have it, but not at the expense of ridiculously low numbers of platforms.
Complete WAG here, but what are we likely to pay and what are we likely to get? Say £6Bn in procurement & development costs to receive a fleet of 60-70? Say 10-15 FE@R? Effectively no more than 3 deployable sqns? And while I take the point about economic benefit, such an arrangement could be constructed for ANY future procurement, thus the question of underlying cost is relevant, particularly within a constrained Defence funding envelope.
Aston Martins are wonderful cars - but sometimes all you need is a Ford Transit.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Line Entry
Aside from the war against a "superpower" issue, the other one is that HMG still wants to maintain the strategic capability to build the most complex military equipment "in house".
We know there is a plan in force for Nuclear Submarines and Surface Warships but as SSSETOWTF indicated, the F-35 seems to have become the only manned FJ programme with a future post 2020 and substantial UK involvement.
SSSETOWTF also made the point about the choice being between deploying a package of aircraft with stand-off jammers & Rivet Joints etc or a couple of LO aircraft with some appropriate planning" We seem to have decided to be go down the latter route with the inevitable result that the manned FJ element of our Air Force/Navy will be smaller and use LO and/or Typhoon and/or with UAV's.
Aside from the war against a "superpower" issue, the other one is that HMG still wants to maintain the strategic capability to build the most complex military equipment "in house".
We know there is a plan in force for Nuclear Submarines and Surface Warships but as SSSETOWTF indicated, the F-35 seems to have become the only manned FJ programme with a future post 2020 and substantial UK involvement.
SSSETOWTF also made the point about the choice being between deploying a package of aircraft with stand-off jammers & Rivet Joints etc or a couple of LO aircraft with some appropriate planning" We seem to have decided to be go down the latter route with the inevitable result that the manned FJ element of our Air Force/Navy will be smaller and use LO and/or Typhoon and/or with UAV's.
RLE and Draken...
The F-35 advocates may be correct in saying that there are threats against which the jet's level of LO may be effective, and where a Typhoon or Rafale can't go without a lot of support and/or with high risk. But there are a few points beyond that.
Such threats (double digit SAMs, for instance) will never be ubiquitous or cover the entire airspace.
They may evolve to the level where even an F-35 will not get it, drop a JDAM and get out again.
As we have seen, going downtown against fixed heavily defended targets is not the only fighter mission, and there are others where LO is not relevant or barely so.
The Euros all recognized the value of LO for heavily defended targets, which is why we have Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus. Back in the day of a $35 million, lower-then-F-16-operating-cost JSF you could argue that this was a more expensive solution. In 2018, who knows - and in the 2020s you can add the VLO UCAV option.
The F-35 advocates may be correct in saying that there are threats against which the jet's level of LO may be effective, and where a Typhoon or Rafale can't go without a lot of support and/or with high risk. But there are a few points beyond that.
Such threats (double digit SAMs, for instance) will never be ubiquitous or cover the entire airspace.
They may evolve to the level where even an F-35 will not get it, drop a JDAM and get out again.
As we have seen, going downtown against fixed heavily defended targets is not the only fighter mission, and there are others where LO is not relevant or barely so.
The Euros all recognized the value of LO for heavily defended targets, which is why we have Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus. Back in the day of a $35 million, lower-then-F-16-operating-cost JSF you could argue that this was a more expensive solution. In 2018, who knows - and in the 2020s you can add the VLO UCAV option.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest you can argue for both sides - it's like watching Henman play tennis.... quite boring! The thread's been done [almost] to death now and there are those firmly 'For' and those firmly 'Against' spouting the same hyperbole every time. The reality is that HMG has looked at the balance sheet and carefully considered their equipment programme; for now at least, JCA is still in it for the forseeable but lets see what factors are present for the next SDSR. MoD has reviewed the costs, looked at the predicted cost-curve and through-life sustainment figures with some scrutiny and balanced the whole lot against extant (yes, extant!)capability requirements for a 5th Gen air system.
Sure, the UK economy needs to tighten its belt but I for one believe we made the right move to go F-35C for all sorts of reasons; I couldn't agree more with SSSETOWTF on the supporting rationale for LO and high-end sensor dominance either - some of the single, most effective battlefield enablers of the last 10 years have been sensor-derived data and networked SA. F-35C brims with both.
Duff statement chap; such threats only have to be where you don't want them vice everywhere so, while you have the good fortune to sit in your armchair, enthusiastically peering at the World's first 100% accurate crystal ball you might consider that the rest of us military folk don't - hence we prepare for what our 'Int' tells us, not the likes of you. My point is that today's 'Aston Martin' threat system becomes cheaper, more prolific and still as effective as the years go by.
Yup, and the plan is that F-35 will evolve to keep pace, or even out-pace those threats. JDAM is 'so' last year too. F-35 plans to offer the same growth capacity that F-16 has given since its inception. You can only polish a turd so far and unfortunately for the next 25 years F-16 and F-18 will reach their respective zeniths' of reflectivity (read Nadir of usefulness) well before that time is up. F-18 roadmaps that spout anything different are just keeping Boeing's shareprice up just so you can replace that well-worn armchair of yours; it keeps Elmo stocked for Jack too. I do remember Boeing believing in the concept of 5th gen manned fighters too...and a competition....oops!
So to answer the thread title....'because we are..... and it doesn't concern you...so there!'
Sure, the UK economy needs to tighten its belt but I for one believe we made the right move to go F-35C for all sorts of reasons; I couldn't agree more with SSSETOWTF on the supporting rationale for LO and high-end sensor dominance either - some of the single, most effective battlefield enablers of the last 10 years have been sensor-derived data and networked SA. F-35C brims with both.
Such threats (double digit SAMs, for instance) will never be ubiquitous or cover the entire airspace.
They may evolve to the level where even an F-35 will not get it, drop a JDAM and get out again.
So to answer the thread title....'because we are..... and it doesn't concern you...so there!'
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
I do remember Boeing believing in the concept of 5th gen manned fighters too...and a competition....oops!
What is that saying about an aircraft 'looking right'?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Systems like the SA-10 are already proliferating around the world. For open source, try - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile) - and scroll down to see which countries have them, or are thought to be trying to get them. It includes old favourites such as Iran, Syria, Serbia, and Libya amongst others. When a system is as mobile as the SA-10 a country doesn't have to have very many at all before lots of pilots of 4th Gen airplanes are going to have trouble clearing their ears on the first night of the next Op. And it can be pretty hard (and expensive) to target them with cruise missiles if the SAM operator knows what he's doing.
To go back to LowObservable's earlier points:
Venlet, as the PEO, is required to ensure LM deliver an ORD-compliant Block 3 aircraft on budget. TBR was an excellent exercise for him to open all the cupboards, air all the skeletons and blame anything and everything on his predecessors. You can rest assured that he is staking his career on the price and timeline in the results of the TBR so in his mind it's as accurate as it can possibly be. But he doesn't tell the Services or Partners when they can or can't declare IOC. The USAF have squadrons of F-22s, Block 50 F-16s, Rivet Joints, JSTARS etc and are prepared to wait until Block 3 is full-up until they declare IOC. The USMC with their tired fleets of AV-8Bs and legacy F-18s have a much greater degree of urgency and, after careful analysis of the Block 2B capabilities, are content that it is enough to be going on with. The UK can make their own choice on what constitutes IOC. A Block 2B F-35 will have more air-ground capability than one RAF aircraft currently on Ops over Libya has right now.
It may be arrogant to say that there is no alternative. Or it may just be true. So what is the alternative you're proposing? Trying to reverse engineer stealth characteristics into existing platforms? I'm no LO design expert, but in my very limited knowledge you need things like aligned edges, an absolute minimum of very carefully designed protuberances - scoops, holes, air data probes, aerials, fuel dump pipes etc, a carefully designed sub-structure, bendy intakes to conceal your engine face, some magic around the back end to hide your jetpipe, an embedded targeting pod built into the airframe, an AESA radar if you don't have one already and the application of easily maintainable coatings + many more. There's a fair bit more to it than putting on some conformal fuel tanks and bolting on a stealthy weapons pod. By the time you've spent all the money to do that, wouldn't you just prefer to have a purpose-built, brand new airplane that's at the beginning of its growth cycle? (and in the UK's case, to be a Level 1 partner in the manufacture of lots and lots of those new airplanes so they almost come for free)
And finally, before I go down the pub for the night, it's well known that there are fighter missions that don't require stealth. F-35 was explicitly designed for them too. When you've cleaned out all the nasty threats, you bolt on the 6 external pylons and the gun, add some double ejector racks and play to your heart's content, in an airplane that gives you more SA than you've ever dreamed was possible - an APG-81, EOTS, DAS, L16 etc and all shared at very high data rates over MADL with all your coalition buddies in their F-35s too.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!
To go back to LowObservable's earlier points:
Venlet, as the PEO, is required to ensure LM deliver an ORD-compliant Block 3 aircraft on budget. TBR was an excellent exercise for him to open all the cupboards, air all the skeletons and blame anything and everything on his predecessors. You can rest assured that he is staking his career on the price and timeline in the results of the TBR so in his mind it's as accurate as it can possibly be. But he doesn't tell the Services or Partners when they can or can't declare IOC. The USAF have squadrons of F-22s, Block 50 F-16s, Rivet Joints, JSTARS etc and are prepared to wait until Block 3 is full-up until they declare IOC. The USMC with their tired fleets of AV-8Bs and legacy F-18s have a much greater degree of urgency and, after careful analysis of the Block 2B capabilities, are content that it is enough to be going on with. The UK can make their own choice on what constitutes IOC. A Block 2B F-35 will have more air-ground capability than one RAF aircraft currently on Ops over Libya has right now.
It may be arrogant to say that there is no alternative. Or it may just be true. So what is the alternative you're proposing? Trying to reverse engineer stealth characteristics into existing platforms? I'm no LO design expert, but in my very limited knowledge you need things like aligned edges, an absolute minimum of very carefully designed protuberances - scoops, holes, air data probes, aerials, fuel dump pipes etc, a carefully designed sub-structure, bendy intakes to conceal your engine face, some magic around the back end to hide your jetpipe, an embedded targeting pod built into the airframe, an AESA radar if you don't have one already and the application of easily maintainable coatings + many more. There's a fair bit more to it than putting on some conformal fuel tanks and bolting on a stealthy weapons pod. By the time you've spent all the money to do that, wouldn't you just prefer to have a purpose-built, brand new airplane that's at the beginning of its growth cycle? (and in the UK's case, to be a Level 1 partner in the manufacture of lots and lots of those new airplanes so they almost come for free)
And finally, before I go down the pub for the night, it's well known that there are fighter missions that don't require stealth. F-35 was explicitly designed for them too. When you've cleaned out all the nasty threats, you bolt on the 6 external pylons and the gun, add some double ejector racks and play to your heart's content, in an airplane that gives you more SA than you've ever dreamed was possible - an APG-81, EOTS, DAS, L16 etc and all shared at very high data rates over MADL with all your coalition buddies in their F-35s too.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point:
The UK has only just recently shown that it won't act unilaterally against a foe which could be described as 'shoddy' at best. We would rather stand behind the big boys and get involved once the adversary was down and out.
So it begs the question, if we've not got the balls to attack even Libya on our tod (or until the rats in parliament get approval from the 'tards), when will we ever need the capabilities offered by F35 to attack a country with half decent kit???
Just give the spams a call and ask for some of their 'unique capabilities', they don't even need an excuse to go to war, they love killing and maiming and they're very good at it too !!!!
If you require deep strike in the future, get FOAS-CALCM off the back burner, **** the spams.
The UK has only just recently shown that it won't act unilaterally against a foe which could be described as 'shoddy' at best. We would rather stand behind the big boys and get involved once the adversary was down and out.
So it begs the question, if we've not got the balls to attack even Libya on our tod (or until the rats in parliament get approval from the 'tards), when will we ever need the capabilities offered by F35 to attack a country with half decent kit???
Just give the spams a call and ask for some of their 'unique capabilities', they don't even need an excuse to go to war, they love killing and maiming and they're very good at it too !!!!
If you require deep strike in the future, get FOAS-CALCM off the back burner, **** the spams.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 29th Mar 2011 at 21:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello British friends:
I have been released from jury duty after only two days, instead of a week or so. The defendant was a pink-cheeked and blue-eyed, twenty-six year old fellow with an Anglo-sounding first and last name. His last name rhymes with "Burner." Maybe he has some distant relatives in ye Olde Country. Maybe some of his distant relatives post on PeePrune. I dunno.
Relatives over there or not, Mr. *urner was was revealed to be a villain. This tends to confirm my opinion that most peepul, including most white peepul, are no damned good.
... as SSSETOWTF indicated, the F-35 seems to have become the only manned FJ programme with a future post 2020 and substantial UK involvement.
So, what will the future of Typhoon be circa 2020?
I have been released from jury duty after only two days, instead of a week or so. The defendant was a pink-cheeked and blue-eyed, twenty-six year old fellow with an Anglo-sounding first and last name. His last name rhymes with "Burner." Maybe he has some distant relatives in ye Olde Country. Maybe some of his distant relatives post on PeePrune. I dunno.
Relatives over there or not, Mr. *urner was was revealed to be a villain. This tends to confirm my opinion that most peepul, including most white peepul, are no damned good.
... as SSSETOWTF indicated, the F-35 seems to have become the only manned FJ programme with a future post 2020 and substantial UK involvement.
So, what will the future of Typhoon be circa 2020?
Last edited by Modern Elmo; 30th Mar 2011 at 01:54.