F-35 troubles again

[Sheff]

I didn’t realise you were an expert on future British Foreign Policy

Not an expert, just old enough and wise enough to spot nonsense when I see it.

Putting all the eggs into the basket with Typhoon would simply be crackers for the reasons I and others have already stated.

Not crackers at all, just inevitable and all that we can afford.

We need a Stealth Strike Platform

No we don't.

There is always a chance we will be called into strike first.

Strike who and why?

What fails me, is that people simply don't understand the saving's that low observable platforms present, nearly 20 years after GW1 they still don't get it

It's just that some of us don't read the contents of Air Forces Monthly and translate this into practicalities. Far better to ignore technology-driven hype which is written by aeroplane enthusiasts, and look at realities, particularly the lessons of history. There's nothing to "understand" it's just a case of accepting that Britain is being forced to abandon any grand notions of being a military world power - something which we have struggled to avoid accepting for far too long.

[T_J]

Tim,
As you have highlighted on a previous post we have NATO commitments and not just national. Who knows what the future holds? Isn't it reasonable to have a stealth platform in the inventory? A platform that can integrate and operate alongside other NATO partners? With the F-35B the UK obtains a Harrier/Sea Harrier replacement with the added benefits of a low-observable platform. Likewise the carriers are an investment for the future for decades to come. We just don't know what the future holds and isn't it reasonable to have the flexibility and capability? The future is low-observable and heading down the path of fully autonomous unmanned.

Look at the UK's investment into Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) technologly with Taranis. Imagine the UK carriers in decades to come operating UCAVs off the deck possibly alongside a manned platform such as an upgraded F-35? Imagine a scenario where one F-35 is able to stand off and control a number of UCAVs? Yes, we may never need to use that sort of capability, but isn't it an investment for possible future conflicts that the UK might become involved in?

Look at the UKs Future Offensive Air System (FOAS). Who knows what the defence future holds and the decisions that are going to be made? Is the current nuclear deterrent too costly to maintain with ballistic missiles and SSBNs? Will the UK go back to deploying tactical and strategic nuclear weapons from air assets as a cheaper option? UK defence thinking still seeks an offensive system to replace the Tornado GR4. A long range strike capability as an investment for the future requirements of UK defence policy. If that replacement goes ahead then it will be governed by the need for low observability to make a survivable platform in order to reach its target. My background in the military was intel. In 22 years of working alongside air targeteers my overriding concern was for the aircrew that were put in harms way. If our glorious leaders are going to involve us in conflict then I want every advantage possible to be given to those aircrew.

TJ

[Sheff]

The reality of our defence situation is that our foreign policy is driven by our capabilities rather than vice versa. Naturally, it can be argued that any capability is "necessary" if a suitable scenario is imagined. What I'm getting-at (and which lots of enthusiasts seem unwilling to grasp) is that our country is bankrupt and we can no longer afford to embark upon more overseas crusades. We can barely afford to maintain a presence in Afghanistan and once the Government has extracted us from that disaster, it's unlikely that we will become involved in any others, at least in any serious capacity. In short, we will be obliged to tailor our defence needs to actual defence and nothing more. A good thing some might say. As for confusing any thinking with the Falklands, well of course that's nonsense. The Falklands Crisis was a result of poor foreign policy, not defence policy (which goes back to my comment at the beginning of this paragraph).

Carriers, Stealth and any other high-tech concepts might look like great ideas, but that doesn't mean they're systems we need. We've gone way past any question of what might be the best solutions or the cheapest solutions and reached a stage where whole systems need to be dumped. The carriers are easily the most obvious target. If they do survive (and clearly their future could go either way) it will be a minor miracle. More importantly, if they do, it will inevitably be at the expense of other programmes.

TJ - I don't know where we're going to head either! I had concluded (like most of my peers) that Tornado would ultimately be replaced by a UAV platform of some sort, but as time goes by I begin to wonder whether even this might be something we simply can't afford. I guess there's always the possibility that our economy might improve significantly and enable more defence spending to be made, but somehow I doubt that the situation will ever improve - once cuts are made they are rarely reversed. So I guess it's open to question whether there will ever be a direct replacement for Tornado. As for the IND, I have believed for some years (and written many comments about this) that we may well abandon submarine-launched systems eventually. I've always suspected that despite the logistics involved, our warheads might eventually find their way into a stand-off missile of some sort which can be carried under Nimrod. Cerrainly, no matter what happens, you can be sure that the IND will be one of the last things any government wants to give-up. As with all these things, time will tell I suppose!

[PR9]

Hawker P.1154.
At least four decades ahead of it's time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We can do this, we should say sod it and go it alone as these multinational projects which are supposed to reduce costs are no longer working.

[Sheff]

Well not quite - ultimately we couldn't do it, which is why we bought the Phantom! But it illustrates an interesting point about identifying what we actually need or don't need. The TSR2 was much the same. Ultimately, after a lot of money was spent on it, the RAF received Buccaneers - the very aircraft which the Air Staff insisted would be unsuitable for the role even though it turned-out to be a perfect solution. I can't help thinking that the same applies to the F-35. Ultimately, it will offers us nothing of any significance beyond the capabilities of Typhoon.

[Jimbo27]

Out of interest then Tim, and I appreciate it is a shamefull thread creep, what is your opinion on Typhoon?

[Sheff]

I think it's a great aeroplane and more than sufficient for our needs both as a fighter/interceptor and a ground attack platform. I don't think the F-35 offers us any significant advantages over Typhoon at all. It's fine to get wrapped-up in technical jargon that you read in AFM but in realistic terms, the Typhoon is more than adequate for the job over the next couple of decades. I think the F-35 is just a relic from another era when defence spending was not quite as critical an issue as it is now, and a time before things like Afghanistan came along. I'm quite sure that an awful lot of pro-JSF was also originally driven by the Navy more than anyone else, who simply wanted to get themselves a good aircraft to replace the Sea Harrier - but of course things have moved on very significantly since then. F-35 would be a fine piece of kit if we were still in the business of global power but we're not.