|
An alternative interpretation might be "train hard, fight easy"?
|
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/a-an...ed-f-35-force/
The UKDJ has published the above article which hints at the possibility of the UK operating a mixed force of F-35As and Bs. FB |
What a garbage article.
On the very first page, describing the options of F35A, B and C models, the author states: ”Obviously, as the UK’s Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are equipped with ski-jump’s instead of catapults for launching and short traps for recovering aircraft, the C variant isn’t a viable option for the UK.” He then goes on to discard the C model and compare the A and B, neglecting the fact that, by exactly the same criteria, the A model is also eliminated. At that point I stopped reading...... |
South Korea plans to build aircraft carrier for F-35B
https://news.usni.org/2020/08/11/sou...rcraft-carrier |
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...jets-z2bzfh3nm
Anger at Arab ‘deal’ for US fighter jets Israeli euphoria at an agreement to establish diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates was replaced by anger yesterday after it was claimed that the Gulf state was close to signing a deal for US F-35 stealth fighter jets. Israeli hawks fear that the sale could end its military dominance in the Middle East. Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, denied that he had agreed to advanced arms sales to the UAE in the negotiations with the Trump administration, which brokered the agreement. His senior ministers said they did not know the details and the Americans did not comment..... Israeli media reported that after its agreement to establish diplomatic relations with Israel the UAE would now be allowed to purchase the F-35 stealth jet, the most advanced military aircraft being produced in the US, which is in operational use with Israel and Britain, as well as advanced drones. The UAE, which has a defence procurement budget assessed at £18 billion, much of which is spent on US arms, has been asking to buy the F-35 since at least 2017 but had been rebuffed by the US. Mr Netanyahu said: “Israel did not give any agreement to any arms deals between the UAE and the US. On the contrary, the US repeatedly promised it is committed to ensuring Israel’s qualitative edge.” However, he did not deny that such a deal could take place and the fact that he kept the negotiations with the UAE to himself, not updating senior ministers before Thursday’s announcement, has fuelled speculation. |
Like the F-15 - the Arabs will get them a lot later than teh Isrealis - by the time they've negotiated the deal, set up a training squadron etc etc it'll be 8 years before they're in service
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10864843)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...jets-z2bzfh3nm
Anger at Arab ‘deal’ for US fighter jets Israeli euphoria at an agreement to establish diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates was replaced by anger yesterday after it was claimed that the Gulf state was close to signing a deal for US F-35 stealth fighter jets. Israeli hawks fear that the sale could end its military dominance in the Middle East. The IAF know this: it's the Indian, not the Arrow. (And I'd say that over the years, they've ably demonstrated that theory in practice). Put differently, you could try to put me into a Formula One car, and in a race. You'd see no anger from Team McLaren, eh? No matter how nice the car, it's the quality of the driver that makes a very big difference. Plus: the F-35 does not exist in a vacuum. They operate as a part of a larger and complex system. Getting all of the moving parts to work well together takes a seriously professional military force. Line to take on this "anger" assessment: a load of bollocks and hot air. |
Salute!
Thanks, Wolf I only helped foreign nationals learn to employ two different attack planes, but it was obvious which ones would have the most success. Besides technical "comfort and skill", basic airmanship and fire in the belly play a large part on the outcome of the ultimate challenge. Gums sends... |
The F-35 is the Curtis P-40 of our day, Americas export fighter. It may have its faults, but it serves the purpose.
Moreover, although doubtless there are platforms that are superior in some aspects, the aircraft does not operate in a vacuum, as has been pointed out. What that implies is that the buyer accepts a very close integration with the US industry, a relationship which has big strings attached, as Turkey has demonstrated. It seems implausible that Israel would be upset by this. |
Salute!
Excuse me, ETUDIANT. The comparison with the WW2 era P-40 is ludicrous. Up to me, I wouldn't let the F-35 be sold to anybody except very close allies that have shed blood with us for a common cause. Even at the dawn of WW2, the P-40 was not a cornerstone of export aircraft as far as the U.S. was concerned. Seems to me that the P-39 for the Russians was a biggie, as was the original Mustangs. As far as integration with U.S. industry, I saw this first hand with the F-16 group that suggested cockpit and weapon control software/hardware mods. USAF hosted a working group that submitted suggestions to USAF and DoD. The original cast of characters had a "vote", but the IAF reps suggested things but had no vote. They negotiated directly with GD. The F-35 is a different breed of cat. There's the obvious LO aspect of the beast, but then there's the cosmic avionics and integration of all the sensors and such. I am not willing to place all that on the market for anyone to buy and then employ against my country and it allies. Period. Gums sends... |
I guess one could look at the Israeli annoyance as an endorsement for the aircraft’s capabilities.
|
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...ases-nk2hfns8c
Britain may halve fighter jet purchases Britain could buy only half its target of 138 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, according to sources close to the government’s defence review. The UK has agreed to buy 48 of the stealth multirole jets by the end of 2025 for £9.1 billion. It is the most expensive weapons system in military history..... A wider British aspiration to buy 138 of the aircraft over the lifespan of the US-led programme is seen as unlikely to be fulfilled, defence sources said. The 138 figure was confirmed as an ambition in the UK defence review in 2015, but the Commons defence committee noted later that this decision was taken “following some hesitation”. Britain is not contractually obliged to buy any more than 48. It is understood that as part of the foreign policy, defence and security integrated review due to conclude in November, military chiefs have discussed the figure of 70 F-35s as a credible minimum total order. Discussions are said to be continuing about how to balance investment in the American-designed jets that are state-of-the-art and in production, with channelling funding into Tempest, a next-generation fighter jet programme led by the UK that is at an early stage. A third factor in Britain’s combat air-power funding equation is a scheme to upgrade the RAF’s Typhoon fighter jets with the latest technology. In the longer term the aim is for the Tempest jet, which is due to come into service from 2035, to replace Typhoons when they are phased out of service from the late 2030s....... Tobias Ellwood, Conservative chairman of the Commons defence select committee, urged ministers to think carefully before slashing the number of total F-35 orders. “In the first Gulf War, we had 36 fast-jet squadrons; we are now down to six. We’re getting close to having a niche combat capability. We can’t keep eroding our spectrum of capability in this way,” he said yesterday. Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, former head of the RAF, said: “Am I happy with the idea of cutting F-35s in the long-term? No, I’m not, because it would undoubtedly leave us even shorter of frontline combat squadrons.” However, Justin Bronk, a research fellow in combat air-power at the Royal United Services Institute, said that although a fleet of 70 F-35s would be “on the lower end of expectations”, it “makes sense”. At that number, the RAF would be able to keep 60 in service, with ten held back to replace any aircraft lost to attrition or age-related damage, he said. Mr Bronk suggested that investment in Tempest may create British jobs, but was sceptical that the resulting jet would outperform the F-35. “Even in an optimistic scenario, the UK and Italy with potentially other partners such as Sweden will be able to contribute a fraction of the investment in both development and acquisition of the US to a next-generation fighter programme,” he said. “So it should be admitted up front that the overall capability is likely to be behind what the Americans are producing at a similar point, making the arguments for Tempest primarily sovereign industrial arguments rather than operational capability ones.” Francis Tusa, editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter, said: “It’s obvious 138 is a vaporous figure, unless you were to say, ‘Let’s scrap the army completely and spend the money on the RAF’. Support costs of F-35s [are] eye-watering and the availability rate is poor because of the waiting time for spare parts.”....... |
I'll still be surprised if we end up with more than the 48.
|
Originally Posted by GeeRam
(Post 10870941)
I'll still be surprised if we end up with more than the 48.
|
tempest is just another gravy train for BAe shareholders TBH - vast amounts of money spent to produce something less good that we can buy of the shelf.
|
All this could make the block 4 upgrade numbers more critical.
Answering a question in the House of Commons Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence (MoD), Jeremy Quin, said that, while the international Block 4 (full combat) upgrade has been costed into the UK’s procurement programme, the precise numbers of already-delivered jets to go through the retrofit process have not yet been decided. JANES 24 JUNE 2020 I wonder if the level/tier 2 & 3 partners will demand work share is revisited if the 138 commitment is explicitly abandoned? |
Workshare was negotiated at the time the UK became the only Level 1 partner on the basis of the initial funding to the programme.
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10871138)
tempest is just another gravy train for BAe shareholders TBH - vast amounts of money spent to produce something less good that we can buy of the shelf.
|
"you cannot guarantee you will get the latest variant nor a full technology transfer."
Nut - I'm not sure the UK can afford either for a significant fleet of modern combat aircraft. Most countries in the world are beholden to others to provide arms - especially combat aircraft - I'm afraid the UK would rather be bankers and media folk than have a decent sized engineering capability - you make more money that way . It's part of a long and steady decline, which as you say, goes back well over 50 years |
And yet you spend so much time slagging off BAe. You really don't know what you want.
|
Originally Posted by Geordie_Expat
(Post 10872749)
And yet you spend so much time slagging off BAe. You really don't know what you want.
No - I was commenting on Nuts post - I'm not a great believer in protecting home grown industries at all costs - over the years its been a recipe for vast amounts of taxpayers cash being shoveled into things that went bust - and were clearly going bust for a long time. Getting shot of the NCB, British Leyland, British Steel and all the other industrial behemoths has made the UK a richer place |
Wake Island Avengers arrive last night
With the work up of QE first deployment next year, and embarking usmc F-35B, last night VMFA-211 arrived at Marham. MCAS Yuma based VMFA-211 ‘Wake Island Avengers’ had made their long journey over couple of days then staging overnight in Bangor before 24 hour delay, they finally arrived here last night. So here are my photos of them arriving (first batch arrived in just enough light while second arrived in dark),
cheers https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5d0c13b6e.jpeg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e2cda0bad.jpeg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1ae943044.jpeg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f8333f958.jpeg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9f85e74d6.jpeg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....133b3c2b6.jpeg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....56b095e44.jpeg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c4251fe18.jpeg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....eb024d348.jpeg |
It would appear that the flying Jarheads have arrived. :ok:
Hope they have a great workup/ workout with the home side. |
|
F-35 Lightning II couldn't fly with B-52s due to .... lightning !
https://theaviationist.com/2020/09/2...d-sky-mission/ |
Interesting Comment column in today's Times.
Top Gun diplomacy helps US win friends It would be comic if it were not so ruinously expensive. The F-35 fighter, a project two decades in the making at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, had so many flaws it might as well have been the ramshackle police truck in a Keystone Cops movie. Pilots complained of piercing ear pain in the cockpit, their built-in guns played up. Sometimes a flat tyre could set off a series of errors. Engineers found 873 software glitches, a dozen of them serious enough to impede a mission. And yet here we are: the F-35, the American-built fighter for the next generation of war, has arrived and though only a few have actually seen action it is already changing geopolitics. The US Marine version of the plane was filmed this week making an elegant landing on Britain’s new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, and next year the carrier and its planes, both British and American, are due to steam off to the tense South China Sea. The US carrier Carl Vinson, recently retrofitted to take F-35s, looks likely to be heading in the same direction. Whatever happens in the US presidential election, the betting is that Beijing will be putting pressure on Taiwan to assess whether the West is willing to fight for it. Despite all the hiccups in its development, the F-35 is a demonstration of military prowess. Its stealthiness — its ability to avoid radar — has forced both Russia and China to plough research into radar, new air-and-sea tactics and defences including an S500 missile. Russia was certainly rattled when Norwegian F-35s escorted two American B-2 “Spirit” stealth bombers over the northernmost parts of the Norwegian Sea. The mission was to test the ability of Nato allies to co-ordinate at high Arctic altitudes in what could soon become a new battleground. There’s a danger that everyone comes to see the F-35 as a shortcut to security, that we’re all drinking from the rather muddy fountain of Hitler’s V2 Wunderwaffe. It is not a miracle machine and won’t be even when the technical flaws have been ironed out. But it ticks a lot of boxes: close air support, air-to-ground attacks, aerial dogfights, vertical take-off and a sucker-up of intelligence. The pilot has a 360-degree view; his helmet feeds him with, and usefully prioritises, incoming data. The plane is a nimble flying computer that can hide from the enemy. Because of its design, but also because of the way it has been marketed, it makes for extraordinary levels of real-time battlefield communication between allies. And it can be adapted to different theatres of war. That’s why it has become such a political tool. The combination of breech-loading, longer-range rifles — meaning camouflaged attackers could lie down and shoot behind cover — gave Afrikaner farmers the edge over red-coated British soldiers in the Boer war. “I never saw a Boer all day till the battle was over, and it was our men who were the victims,” groaned a British general. That was the power of stealth, of accuracy and nimbleness and is what the fifth generation of fighters offers. Little wonder, then, that the F-35 was the subject of a side deal when the US brokered a peace accord between Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE has formally requested the fighter. Israel already has it, about 24 at present, possibly rising to as many as 75, and was the first to use it in an active strike. Earlier this year it wiped out an Iranian or Iranian ally’s ammunition convoy crossing Syria. The US has pledged it won’t allow Israel to lose its military advantage over Arab states so, if it agrees to supply the UAE, it must find a way that prevents their F-35s from hitting those of Israel. That’s a gamble but in the short term at least it should draw the two countries closer in countering the pernicious influence of Iran. Saudi Arabia may be the next to request the fighter. Again, this would not be a straightforward transaction. The first batch of the F-35 is being manufactured and sold at the same time as it is being developed, hence the high number of technical problems. They are serviced and maintained as part of the sales contract, with both the manufacturer and the purchaser learning more as they go along. Later deliveries will thus be more attractive than the retrofitted earlier ones. What happens to the old fleet? Are they going to be used as an expensive training tool? Or will they be sold on in a grey arms market? If Saudi Arabia were to pass on its older F-35s to Pakistan, there would be trouble ahead. Britain’s decision to be in at the beginning on the F-35, alongside Australia, Canada, Israel and Italy, was nonetheless the right one. The coming integrated defence review aims to set our strategic priorities and may, in the light of tightening Covid-era budgets, conclude that Britain can get by with fewer than 70 fighters, rather than the original target of 138. At the moment we’re down for 48 by 2025 at a cost of £9 billion and 18 have arrived. It’s a conceit, though, to believe we can choose our war or confine it to one theatre. The reality is that conflict has a way of finding us. The next few years will be defined by a hostile China. Putin’s Russia is inherently unstable. Small wars will merge or trigger bigger ones. Command of the air will be crucial; it’s not the time for us to retire as a military power. |
Originally Posted by Lyneham Lad
(Post 10895615)
Interesting Comment column in today's Times.
Top Gun diplomacy helps US win friends The F-35 is quite unaffordable, even for the UAE. The maintenance and upgrade costs will sap their resources for the life of this project. Also, no credible military effort is built around a few dozen unreplaceable wonder weapons. There is a separate thread here on PPruNe about the last days of the British Empire in Aden. What is stunning is the disconnect between the technically advanced gear of the losers, the British, compared to the primitive weaponry of the winners, the local insurgents. But apparently we've learned nothing. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10895923)
As someone now deceased noted 'quantity has a quality all its own'. One may legitimately wonder whether any 'silver bullet' system, no matter how shiny, will influence the larger sweep of things.
The F-35 is quite unaffordable, even for the UAE. The maintenance and upgrade costs will sap their resources for the life of this project. |
F-35A Crash - Eglin AFB - 19 May 2020- Accident Report
Executive Summary:
The AIB President found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the mishap was caused first, by the MA touching down at 202 KCAS, and second, by the MA flight control surfaces, namely the tail of the aircraft, conflicting with the MP inputs upon landing, resulting in the MP’s inability to recover from the aircraft oscillation. The AIB President also found by a preponderance of the evidence that four additional factors substantially contributed to the mishap. The substantially contributing factors are: - the MP landed with Speed Hold engaged and using an alternate crosscheck method - the MP Helmet Mounted Display misalignment distracted the MP during a critical phase of flight - the MP experienced cognitive degradation due to fatigue - the MP lacked systems knowledge on flight control logic https://www.airforcemag.com/app/uplo...ort_Signed.pdf |
AF Magazine today:
Eglin F-35 Crash Blamed on Landing Speed, but Software, Helmet, Oxygen Also FaultedBy John A. TirpakExcessive landing speed was the primary cause of the May 19 crash of an F-35A at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., though faulty flight control logic, the helmet mounted display, the jet's oxygen system, and improper training and were all contributing factors, according to an Air Force investigation. An Accident Investigation Board found that the principle reason for the crash was the pilot setting a “speed hold” of 202 knots indicated airspeed for the landing, which was 50 knots too fast, while the jet's approach angle was too shallow, according to the report released Sept. 30. The second main cause was the tail flight control surfaces “conflicting” with the pilot’s apparently correct efforts to recover the jet after it bounced on the runway, a problem the Air Force said was a “previously undiscovered anomaly in the aircraft’s flight control logic.” The plane and pilot “quickly fell out of sync,” as the flight computer commanded nose down while the pilot commanded nose up, attempting to abort the landing and go around. Sensing that he was being “ignored” by the airplane, the pilot ejected, sustaining significant but non-life-threatening injuries. |
Originally Posted by henra
(Post 10898108)
But that would apply to all current Fighters (maybe apart from the Gripen). Be it EF, Rafale, newest F-15, F-16, F-18. Doesn't make that much of a difference. Ok you might be able to afford 18 instead of 15. However, that is not the quality that said person spoke of....
Judging by the results from the various engagements over the post WW2 period, it is totally true. However, we appear impervious to the evidence. |
I posted the AF Magazine Daily Report article in the F-35 vs C130 thread and the powers that be moved it here. The reason I posted it there was this section:
"The second main cause was the tail flight control surfaces “conflicting” with the pilot’s apparently correct efforts to recover the jet after it bounced on the runway, a problem the Air Force said was a “previously undiscovered anomaly in the aircraft’s flight control logic.” The plane and pilot “quickly fell out of sync,” as the flight computer commanded nose down while the pilot commanded nose up, attempting to abort the landing and go around. Sensing that he was being “ignored” by the airplane, the pilot ejected, sustaining significant but non-life-threatening injuries. " While the article clearly has import in this thread, It is possible that this particular factor, or a variation on it, may have been part of the 35/130 meeting. Just supposing.. Maybe a copy can be posted over there? JohnDixson is online now Report Post |
I should think it very unlikely that a pitch control anomaly would cause a midair collision during probe and drogue refuelling for the simple reason that the receiver is (supposed to be) behind the tanker. Up and down movement could certainly tear the probe off the receiver or rip the drogue off the hose, but neither would be expected to cause much damage due to the presence of weak links. Besides, the instinctive response to any developing danger during refuelling is to slam the throttle to idle and “exit stage rear”, emphatically not “exit stage forward via the tanker’s right engines”.
|
An Accident Investigation Board found that the principle reason for the crash was the pilot setting a “speed hold” of 202 knots indicated airspeed for the landing, which was 50 knots too fast, while the jet's approach angle was too shallow, according to the report released Sept. 30. |
200 is recommended maneuver speed to the FAF. Initial speed selection was not an error. The subsequent errors made were not then selecting the proper final approach speed at the FAF for the ILS and not recognizing this had not been done due to HMDS distractions. He also failed to disconnect the auto thrust compensation prior to touchdown, and (gasp) failed to transmit, "Mayday, mayday, mayday." prior to ejection.:}
|
Salute!
Thanks, Okie. I am having a hard time assigning cause to a unknown CLAW. Least in Viper, we didn't have a "bounce" mode. Saw some interesting changes in the laws when checking out folks and saw another feature testing the "big tail” mod back when earth still cooling. Gums sends... |
Originally Posted by josephfeatherweight
(Post 10899529)
It would be very interesting to read more about why this speed of 202 knots was selected (apparently incorrectly) by the pilot and why the aircraft's abnormally high speed was (apparently) ignored??
|
you can read more in the accident report linked to earlier |
Originally Posted by JohnDixson
(Post 10899430)
I posted the AF Magazine Daily Report article in the F-35 vs C130 thread and the powers that be moved it here. The reason I posted it there was this section:
"The second main cause was the tail flight control surfaces “conflicting” with the pilot’s apparently correct efforts to recover the jet after it bounced on the runway, a problem the Air Force said was a “previously undiscovered anomaly in the aircraft’s flight control logic.” The plane and pilot “quickly fell out of sync,” as the flight computer commanded nose down while the pilot commanded nose up, attempting to abort the landing and go around. Sensing that he was being “ignored” by the airplane, the pilot ejected, sustaining significant but non-life-threatening injuries. " While the article clearly has import in this thread, It is possible that this particular factor, or a variation on it, may have been part of the 35/130 meeting. Just supposing.. Maybe a copy can be posted over there? JohnDixson is online now Report Post |
IDFAF F-35 female
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.