F-35 troubles again

[Sheff]

More fun and games (skip the annoying intro page) :-

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/200 ... USIVE.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder if this will be the final nail in the coffin - if there's room for any more nails that is!

Wouldn't it be great if Gordy Brown had enough guts to tell our American friends to shove their over-priced toy and while we're at it, finish their silly crusade over in Afghanistan on their own...

[HighlandSniper]

Wouldn't it be great if Gordy Brown had enough guts to tell our American friends to shove their over-priced toy and while we're at it, finish their silly crusade over in Afghanistan on their own...

Hear Hear

[mrlongbow]

It would be great if he had enough guts to tell the Americans to shove it, but we all know he won`t. But i bet the treasury would!

[gonk]

I don't know if this is of interest same subject, I have read that the I D F believe the F35 is not only too expensive but to slow.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/11/23/jsf-s ... pax-river/

[mrlongbow]

Stop this F-35 lark! If it turns out to be a awesome bit of kit, then in a few years time then maybe buy a small batch. Let other nations have the difficulties and issues of a new aircraft also. If we did pull out then the cost per airfram will jump a lot. This might just then put other nations off, as we know the Dutch (i think!) have issued worries over the price etc.

I would still love to see Rafale or Gripen in service. For all those people who pick faults and say "Gripen this" " Rafale that" , the fact is one of these aircraft is now tried and tested and from what i have been told there would be no problem in "navalising" Gripen. And the deal that we could get, airframes,support etc would be so cheap compared to anything else. We could actually affored more than the 50?? F-35 airframes we are currently going to get.

On a differnt note, why not spend out time coming up with some stealth defeating technology. That would please the yanks! Maybe they would give us the codes then

[Sheff]

Interesting that you mention Rafale and Gripen again as these keep cropping-up in enthusiast chat on the F-35 subject time and time again. Thing is, I don't know why as there isn't even the slightest possibility of either type being purchased for the RAF/FAA. The only real choice is between having the F-35 or not having it. There's no suggestion that anything else would be purchased to replace it.

Personally, I think the matter is on a knife edge at the moment. It could go either way. I still think that the F-35 will be abandoned and that the carriers will also be dumped eventually. Looking at the way things are going, I just don't think there's even nearly enough money to support the F-35 and carriers and we're reaching a stage where the Government is more likely to do a repeat of their withdrawal from the Far/Middle East and simply announce that we no longer have any interest in projecting carrier air power to any part of the globe. I did think for some time that navalising a batch of Typhoons would be a cheaper and more practical solution to our needs but looking at how things now are, I don't think there's likely to be enough money to support the operation of carriers in any form. When people start making noises about maybe "borrowing" a carrier from France as and when needed, you know that we're clutching at straws!

[mrlongbow]

Rafale and Gripen do keep cropping up but i am not interested in them because i am an "enthusiast". I know what they are capable of! But i will agree with you on the fact that we will end up with nothing probably.

[Richard B]

The days of the Harrier hiding in the woods in Germany are long gone even if the Russian Bear does start to show its teeth again(which it will).

Whilst that may be true STOVL was neccesary at the beginning of the Afghan conflict due to the usable runway length at Kandahar. The Harrier was the only CAS aircraft we could operate in-theatre as a consequence.

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see us using the CTOL F-35, I think a mixed CTOL/STOVL fleet could be advantageous in terms of capability, but having STOVL aircraft does have its advantages.

But will the underpowered lift fan work in such areas with the high heat and altitude?

no need for them anyway really,
with UAV's etc that can stay on station for hours and drop smart weapons.
and can operate from small rough landing strips.

no real need to use them in Afghan, they would offer less then what is allready out there.

[HighlandSniper]

The F-35B cannot carry the weapons/sensor load that the Harrier GR.9 currently carries, nor is it likely to in the future. Even the F-35C which is a much wiser option for operation from CVF is a less versatile aircraft. I don't see the F-35B ever being a viable proposition, especially as it looks like it can't fly and fight owing to its inability to carry fuel and weapons for a full mission.

We need to be considering a viable platform to fly from CVF now - I believe that the feasibility work has been done by BAe on a maritime Typhoon which makes so much more sense - lets dump F-35 now (and A400B while we're at it) and buy the navalised Typhoon - Sea Typhoon F/A.5 has a nice ring to it.

At the same time, order another half a dozen C-17s and 25 C-130Js and stop the A400B farce now.

[Sheff]

It's true that work on the carriers is underway but it would be unwise to imagine that this means the carriers are an inevitability. The recent story about using one of them as a helicopter carrier just adds to the absurdity of the saga - if the other one is in refit, we're supposedly expected to buy the notion that France would lend us one for a while - what nonsense!

MP's on both sides of the House say the carriers are unaffordable therefore it seems more than likely that once the Defence Review is completed, they will be abandoned - or perhaps one of them retained as a helicopter carrier. But the F-35 must be the biggest temptation on the Government's defence hit list. It would be all-too easy to simply conclude that we no longer wish to pursue fixed-wing carrier operations in any form, and instantly write-off two hugely expensive programmes at a stroke. We're already almost half-way there now that it has been proposed to effectively cut the carrier fleet in half and reduce the F-35 buy to fifty. It's not such a big step to simply abandon the whole lot.

The navalised Typhoon has been looked-at by BAE a couple of times so we know it's practical, and I'm not the only person who thought it would have been a much cheaper solution to our needs, instead of buying the expensive and unnecessary F-35. We never needed the F-35 right from the start and it was crazy that we ever got involved. V/STOL is a relic of the Cold War for heaven's sake - what on Earth were our defence planners thinking of? But I think we've reached a stage where the option of using navalised Typhoons is also very unlikely. I think it's clear that defence spending is going to be cut drastically and the savings that could be made by abandoning F-35 and going for navalised Typhoons just don't add-up any more. I think it more likely that the whole concept of fixed wing carrier ops will be dropped completely.

Doubtless things will get ugly when the Navy tries to cling-on to the last vestiges of fixed-wing power, but I think we've reached a stage where the Government might simply ignore the defence chiefs and do what is necessary to save money, rather than adopt the usual policy of trying to appease all sides as best as possible. Now that the country is effectively bankrupt, I don't think the new government is in any mood to listen. F-35 might survive but I think we should all be prepared to accept that it may well be dumped.

[T_J]

The F-35B cannot carry the weapons/sensor load that the Harrier GR.9 currently carries, nor is it likely to in the future. Even the F-35C which is a much wiser option for operation from CVF is a less versatile aircraft. I don't see the F-35B ever being a viable proposition, especially as it looks like it can't fly and fight owing to its inability to carry fuel and weapons for a full mission.

We need to be considering a viable platform to fly from CVF now - I believe that the feasibility work has been done by BAe on a maritime Typhoon which makes so much more sense - lets dump F-35 now (and A400B while we're at it) and buy the navalised Typhoon - Sea Typhoon F/A.5 has a nice ring to it.

At the same time, order another half a dozen C-17s and 25 C-130Js and stop the A400B farce now.

That is incorrect. Think late block F-16 carriage capability for the F-35. The aircraft is designed from the start with the ability for external carriage. It doesn't have a lesser load carrying capability than the Harrier. Obviously for the F-35B there is a reduction in range due to the STOVL engine arrangement/additional weight.

For example the contract for Paveway IV integration on the UKs F-35B. The Paveway IV will be external carriage only.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php ... te=release" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[HighlandSniper]

The F-35B cannot carry the weapons/sensor load that the Harrier GR.9 currently carries, nor is it likely to in the future. Even the F-35C which is a much wiser option for operation from CVF is a less versatile aircraft. I don't see the F-35B ever being a viable proposition, especially as it looks like it can't fly and fight owing to its inability to carry fuel and weapons for a full mission.

We need to be considering a viable platform to fly from CVF now - I believe that the feasibility work has been done by BAe on a maritime Typhoon which makes so much more sense - lets dump F-35 now (and A400B while we're at it) and buy the navalised Typhoon - Sea Typhoon F/A.5 has a nice ring to it.

At the same time, order another half a dozen C-17s and 25 C-130Js and stop the A400B farce now.

That is incorrect. Think late block F-16 carriage capability for the F-35. The aircraft is designed from the start with the ability for external carriage. It doesn't have a lesser load carrying capability than the Harrier. Obviously for the F-35B there is a reduction in range due to the STOVL engine arrangement/additional weight.

For example the contract for Paveway IV integration on the UKs F-35B. The Paveway IV will be external carriage only.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php ... te=release" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

I can read a set of specifications and quote from them as well as the next man, but in practice the F-35B can not operate with the specified weapons load, full-stop. Currently the F-35B can hardly get off the ground with a full fuel load and certainly not with fuel and weapons.

I too can read - I'm fully aware that some weapons must be carried externally as will the case with the British variant of the F-35B to enable it to carry the full compliment of BVR AAMs specified by the MoD, but until this can be done in reality it's not worth anything. What the marketing BS claims and what can actually be done are two very different things.

It must be obvious to all that external carriage of weapons and other stores on an aircraft built with stealth in mind is utterly pointless and just goes to show what a complete and utter white elephant this is. We don't need stealth, we don't need the F-35B, what we do need is an aircraft which delivers.

[T_J]

Tim,
There is no point in bringing journalist myths into the debate. Journalists just pluck things from the air and suddenly it becomes fact. For example the rumour of the aircraft carrier sale to India. The 'helicopter carrier' has already been debunked.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 920910.ece" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Admiral Stanhope acknowledged that the Army and the RAF might have slightly different priorities when limited resources were shared out.

The Government, he said, was committed to building two aircraft carriers, and it made little sense to start talking about scaling them down to smaller ships. He dismissed a report that one of the carriers might be switched to a helicopter carrier, instead of having the Joint Strike Fighter F35, the replacement for Harriers. “We can put more helicopters on the platform if we want but we will not be converting one of the 64,000-tonne carriers into a helicopter carrier,” he said.'

TJ

[HighlandSniper]

A bit of tongue and cheek and a complete simplification of the situation, but there you go.

Pardon me, doesn't look very tongue in cheek from where I'm standing - A very blinkered approach if you ask me.

Oh, and before you rubbish Britain any further, just consider the quality of our aircrew in comparison to those from elsewhere.

[T_J]

The F-35B cannot carry the weapons/sensor load that the Harrier GR.9 currently carries, nor is it likely to in the future. Even the F-35C which is a much wiser option for operation from CVF is a less versatile aircraft. I don't see the F-35B ever being a viable proposition, especially as it looks like it can't fly and fight owing to its inability to carry fuel and weapons for a full mission.

We need to be considering a viable platform to fly from CVF now - I believe that the feasibility work has been done by BAe on a maritime Typhoon which makes so much more sense - lets dump F-35 now (and A400B while we're at it) and buy the navalised Typhoon - Sea Typhoon F/A.5 has a nice ring to it.

At the same time, order another half a dozen C-17s and 25 C-130Js and stop the A400B farce now.

That is incorrect. Think late block F-16 carriage capability for the F-35. The aircraft is designed from the start with the ability for external carriage. It doesn't have a lesser load carrying capability than the Harrier. Obviously for the F-35B there is a reduction in range due to the STOVL engine arrangement/additional weight.

For example the contract for Paveway IV integration on the UKs F-35B. The Paveway IV will be external carriage only.

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php ... te=release" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

I can read a set of specifications and quote from them as well as the next man, but in practice the F-35B can not operate with the specified weapons load, full-stop. Currently the F-35B can hardly get off the ground with a full fuel load and certainly not with fuel and weapons.

I too can read - I'm fully aware that some weapons must be carried externally as will the case with the British variant of the F-35B to enable it to carry the full compliment of BVR AAMs specified by the MoD, but until this can be done in reality it's not worth anything. What the marketing BS claims and what can actually be done are two very different things.

It must be obvious to all that external carriage of weapons and other stores on an aircraft built with stealth in mind is utterly pointless and just goes to show what a complete and utter white elephant this is. We don't need stealth, we don't need the F-35B, what we do need is an aircraft which delivers.

Rob,
You have completely missed the whole concept. Think about it? The UK wants a Harrier replacement. Remember that the F-35B is a replacement for the Sea Harrier along with the current GRs. Neither the Harrier GR.9 nor the Sea Harrier can match the capabilties of the F-35. Rob, the world has moved on. The developments in modern SAMs and integrated air defence systems are a real threat to current manned platforms. That threat to manned platforms is only going to increase over the F-35s lifetime. Low observability is the future. The F-35 will allow that flexibility and provide the soft pink body inside it that added degree of protection.

Think first days of combat against a potential enemy? The F-35 in full stealth mode allows a capability for striking targets that a legacy platform would struggle to get to. Remember there is a soft pink body in the loop. How many legacy platforms and pilots would you be willing to sacrifice when you have a manned low observability platform in your inventory? It will be decades yet before such strike platforms are unamanned and fully autonomous. The F-35 provides that flexability between a low observable and a legacy platform. The concept is that after initial days of full low observability the F-35 would be re-configured to operate with external payloads once the IADS is supressed or defeated. The Russians will be doing the same with their low-observable fighters in development by having external weapons carriage for some missions. I simply don't buy into the current anti-JSF brigade. The USMC isn't going to buy a lemon or white elephant in the F-35B and neither is the UK. My only concern is that we are not buying enough of them.

TJ

[gonk]

Sorry chaps just another article on price and over run,

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 80%99.html

[Sheff]

With the F35 we get something that will far supress anything we have.

If, by that, you mean "surpass", well I'm not sure how. The F-35 doesn't really offer anything of any great significance other than some intangible stealth technology which we really don't need. I mean, for what precisely? If you look back at JSF it was all about some outdated obsession with V/STOL more than anything else. It's quite absurd really, the Typhoon is perfectly adequate for our needs. If anything, the JSF story was just another example of the Navy trying to stay in the fixed-wing business at all costs. Unfortunately (for the Navy) we've reached a stage in our history where we just can't afford to pander to inter-service fights any longer.

I think that when the Afghanistan story is finally wrapped-up (and that might be rather sooner than our politicians would have us believe) then we're effectively out of the overseas crusades business for good. Okay, we have the Falklands to protect and Nato/UN requirements, but we simply don't have the finances to engage in overseas "power projection" any longer and we will have to concentrate on the defence of the UK and nothing more. It's just a question of how long it takes for our politicians to either accept this fact or (if they've already accepted it) have the guts to be clear about it to the electorate. Once we get to that stage, the idea of supporting carriers just will not seem logical or practical. We've punched above our weight for far too long and the state of our country's finances are finally forcing the Government to accept that we're not a world power, much as we'd like to be.

It'll be fascinating to see what happens to the carriers and the F-35 when the Defence Review finally takes place. As I've said, my view is that when you look at our circumstances, and all the views expressed by politicians from all sides, the carriers are just not going to be affordable and therefore the F-35 is redundant before it even arrives. They might survive but it's incredibly difficult to see just how, when you look at the state that defence spending is in. We're at a stage where there's a growing appetite for dumping the Harrier fleet, cutting-back the Tornado GR4 fleet to an almost pointless level, and yet it's still assumed that money will be found to support some outdated notion of a carrier fleet sailing the seas with an aircraft which costs a fortune but which offers us virtually nothing that cannot be achieved with the Typhoon, other than some abstract stealth technology which will either become outdated far too quickly, or never be applicable to any practical use. When and where is there ever likely to be any need for an aircraft with stealth technology? What on Earth do people imagine we are likely to need such capabilities for? It's simply technology for technology's sake, much like V/STOL which has never had any practical use ever since the end of the Cold War. We have Typhoon and it's both versatile and capable. If we're lucky, we'll keep some of the Tornado fleet too, and that's really all we need and all we can practically afford to operate, unless we're proposing to struggle-on ineffectively with a shoestring budget for decades to come. Not that the latter option isn't a distinct possibility of course!

[Richard B]

We do not need the stealth for a kick down the door 1st strike.
this is all the F35 as over anything the typhoon as .

We kick in the door with UAV's or cruise weapons,takeing the risk of man or woman being at risk out of the picture.

Air to Air will be a very small play in future conflicts with UAV's and cruise weapons kicking down the door and knocking Airfields out.
killing the threat of Air to Air combat from your aggressor.

The typhoon is a very good allround package and can have fitted any new software and weapons that come on line.
the cost of the F35 is just to large for what it is. and the money could be better spent.

to be honest a Carrier is a sitting duck in the future if you went head to head with a major player.
chuck 10 cruise missles at one at the same time and it will loose.

[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