F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
CM, they are not my opinions, they are statements from people in the programme. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineA...112fighter.pdf
If you need a mental picture, envision peeling an onion.
Or, imagine that you roast one big elephant, and then cut it up into a bunch of bite sized pieces, and then eat it one peace at a time. You don't try to eat the elephant whole.
There Is No Silver Bullet.
The fantasy that F-35 is one size fits all (which is what your excerpt from that mag is) does not impress people who have been in the air warfare business as a career.
Also, please have the courtesy to get rid of the line breaks when you cut and paste the hot air and PR stuff. Better yet, please don't do that C & P thing. See above comments for why.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 16th May 2013 at 21:22.
Anyway, ignore list reactivated and back to RCS. Lonewolf, I take your point and I too find it hard to accept the LM claims about the 4-ship, alone and unafraid with no EW, Elint or wide area surveillance support - let alone the airborne "gateway". And a thought occurs; if this really is the DoD's vision, why continue with the B2, F117, etc., programmes? There is something missing from this picture.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 16th May 2013 at 22:36.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing you're excluding the difference between tactical and strategic assets. That is a good point, though, and it does call into question any doubts about the validity of 'older' stealth platforms against the "silver bullet" F-35 claims.
Last edited by APG63; 16th May 2013 at 22:52.
F-117s are still seen flying around...
Some of the claims for the F-35 are a little silly. My favorite is still from 2008:
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access - all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."
Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_SettingRecordStraightonF-
And as I mentioned a few posts ago, the fact that the USAF is tipping billions into F-22 upgrades (and B-2 come to that) shows that the professionals know that these claims are invalid.
But to make them in public, with the goal of monopolizing the combat aircraft business, so that you make tons of money while combat pilots put life and limb on the line in a non-invulnerable jet that you bamboozled politicians to support... that's not good at all.
Some of the claims for the F-35 are a little silly. My favorite is still from 2008:
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access - all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."
Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_SettingRecordStraightonF-
And as I mentioned a few posts ago, the fact that the USAF is tipping billions into F-22 upgrades (and B-2 come to that) shows that the professionals know that these claims are invalid.
But to make them in public, with the goal of monopolizing the combat aircraft business, so that you make tons of money while combat pilots put life and limb on the line in a non-invulnerable jet that you bamboozled politicians to support... that's not good at all.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as I mentioned a few posts ago, the fact that the USAF is tipping billions into F-22 upgrades (and B-2 come to that) shows that the professionals know that these claims are invalid.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"while combat pilots put life and limb on the line"
I wonder why so many combat pilots endorse it? I would also note your little description that lockmart also mentions "sensor fusion", so no they don't expect "just stealth" to win out over all. I assume (call me crazy) they will rely on multiple survival methods just like aircraft do now, with maybe some new stuff thrown in there as well:
Is There Too Much Secrecy?
"you bamboozled politicians to support"
...With the help of lots and lots of continuous military endorsement of course. I guess its one thing to bamboozle politicians, but it is pretty amazing lockmart actually fooled so many professional military pilots and military experts from all around the globe, and continues to do so. They have them so bamboozled in fact, that they actually still fervently champion the aircraft despite all its issues.
I'm impressed.
I wonder why so many combat pilots endorse it? I would also note your little description that lockmart also mentions "sensor fusion", so no they don't expect "just stealth" to win out over all. I assume (call me crazy) they will rely on multiple survival methods just like aircraft do now, with maybe some new stuff thrown in there as well:
Is There Too Much Secrecy?
"you bamboozled politicians to support"
...With the help of lots and lots of continuous military endorsement of course. I guess its one thing to bamboozle politicians, but it is pretty amazing lockmart actually fooled so many professional military pilots and military experts from all around the globe, and continues to do so. They have them so bamboozled in fact, that they actually still fervently champion the aircraft despite all its issues.
I'm impressed.
Let me clarify. If the F-35 was expected to be so wonderful, why did the F-117 programme continue so long? Why were put into storage 'just in case' and, as LO remarked, why were they still seen flying at least two years after the so-called retirement date? Someone hedging their bets?
I still cannot accept that any system which requires each pilot to be fitted with a $1M helmet is viable.
Perhaps those who signed up to the Lockheed black hole of funding weren't aware of this?
Short of a Romulan cloaking device, 'stealth' will always be vulnerable to advances in detection systems. Passive detection of the presence of an air platform is something of an unknown technology - if the atmospheric disturbance caused by an aerofoil can be detected by advanced technology, 'stealth' won't be worth a cent.
Skillful use of their systems by Yugoslav SAM operators downed an F-117 using their 'obsolete' SA-3 system - and it is rumoured that a B-2 has also been hit by AAA fire following detection with long wavelength radar.
Is 'stealth' worth its astonishing cost? Frankly, I doubt it.
Unless the UK changes its mind yet again, there seems little alternative to the F-35B for the new carriers, although Rafale's STOBAR capability merits closer study. But there are several alternatives to the F-35A (e.g. F-22) and F-35C (e.g. Rafale / F-18E/F/G).
Perhaps those who signed up to the Lockheed black hole of funding weren't aware of this?
Short of a Romulan cloaking device, 'stealth' will always be vulnerable to advances in detection systems. Passive detection of the presence of an air platform is something of an unknown technology - if the atmospheric disturbance caused by an aerofoil can be detected by advanced technology, 'stealth' won't be worth a cent.
Skillful use of their systems by Yugoslav SAM operators downed an F-117 using their 'obsolete' SA-3 system - and it is rumoured that a B-2 has also been hit by AAA fire following detection with long wavelength radar.
Is 'stealth' worth its astonishing cost? Frankly, I doubt it.
Unless the UK changes its mind yet again, there seems little alternative to the F-35B for the new carriers, although Rafale's STOBAR capability merits closer study. But there are several alternatives to the F-35A (e.g. F-22) and F-35C (e.g. Rafale / F-18E/F/G).
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"continue so long? Why were put into storage 'just in case' and, as LO remarked, why were they still seen flying at least two years after the so-called retirement date? Someone hedging their bets?"
There are thousands of aircraft put in storage "just in case"
Retirement from operational service does not inherently mean grounded and never to fly again. If you are really trying to clutch at these straws you are going to have to do better than that. SR-71s were also flown years after retirement. but if it helps the tinfoil hat-- yes they are keeping the fleet of a few aircraft "warm" in case a program that costs hundreds of billions and fields thousands of aircraft, doesn't quiet pan out so you can still go back to the old 40 year plane that has no qualified pilots left for it.
Older aircraft being upgraded means there is not faith in new aircraft? Aircraft being put into storage means expected failure? A few being flown around for research or experimental purposes is suddenly a reflection on the next plane? I don't drink the JSF kool aid but come on. We upgraded phantoms until the end, it didn't mean F-14s and F-15s were bad. And F-4s still fly. The JSFs biggest cheerleaders are upgrading their harriers, this doesn't mean they are cheering any less.
There is something about this aircraft that just brings out the stupid in people on both sides. You have fanboys that think its magic, and detractors that use arguments that could apply to many other aircraft as "proof" that it is poor.
There are thousands of aircraft put in storage "just in case"
Retirement from operational service does not inherently mean grounded and never to fly again. If you are really trying to clutch at these straws you are going to have to do better than that. SR-71s were also flown years after retirement. but if it helps the tinfoil hat-- yes they are keeping the fleet of a few aircraft "warm" in case a program that costs hundreds of billions and fields thousands of aircraft, doesn't quiet pan out so you can still go back to the old 40 year plane that has no qualified pilots left for it.
Older aircraft being upgraded means there is not faith in new aircraft? Aircraft being put into storage means expected failure? A few being flown around for research or experimental purposes is suddenly a reflection on the next plane? I don't drink the JSF kool aid but come on. We upgraded phantoms until the end, it didn't mean F-14s and F-15s were bad. And F-4s still fly. The JSFs biggest cheerleaders are upgrading their harriers, this doesn't mean they are cheering any less.
There is something about this aircraft that just brings out the stupid in people on both sides. You have fanboys that think its magic, and detractors that use arguments that could apply to many other aircraft as "proof" that it is poor.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With products like google glasses on the consumer market I wonder how long it will be before cheap (relatively!) technology becomes available to replace the £1M HMD? Of corse the HMD is much more complex and must be an order of magnitude more reliable but you get the idea.
As far as the F22 goes would it be better for the UK to just build more Typhoons? The RAAF has already tried to buy the Raptor but was blocked by the US congress. Who knows if they would change their minds if the RAF and the RAAF ganged up on them?
As far as the F22 goes would it be better for the UK to just build more Typhoons? The RAAF has already tried to buy the Raptor but was blocked by the US congress. Who knows if they would change their minds if the RAF and the RAAF ganged up on them?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jsffan acts quite a lot like a multi username poster in the war in Australia thread. Ignoring questions he doesn't like or just replying with dodgy one sided links or worse; extensive cut and paste posts that either don't answer the question or gloss over bad points.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Stealth like Altitude?
For our "friends" who believe that the F35 is the answer to everything, is it worth comparing Stealth with Altitude?
The first generation of strategic nuclear bombers, B52, B58, Vulcan, Victor and Valiant as I understand initially used altitude as a means of protection, no fighter or SAM could reach them, they could get to their targets and drop buckets of sunshine or do whatever they wanted to. A certain U2 with Garry Powers on board brought the altitude is safety school of thought to an abrupt halt, the V bombers went lower level, which the Valiant could not do etc.
The moral as others have said is that one technological advance leads to another retaliatory advance. Implicitly a "radar" or other technology solution will be developed that will enable people to detect F35s, then the roundabout starts all over again, slightly similar to MAD....
Altitude worked for a while...
A particular type of stealth will work for a while...
The first generation of strategic nuclear bombers, B52, B58, Vulcan, Victor and Valiant as I understand initially used altitude as a means of protection, no fighter or SAM could reach them, they could get to their targets and drop buckets of sunshine or do whatever they wanted to. A certain U2 with Garry Powers on board brought the altitude is safety school of thought to an abrupt halt, the V bombers went lower level, which the Valiant could not do etc.
The moral as others have said is that one technological advance leads to another retaliatory advance. Implicitly a "radar" or other technology solution will be developed that will enable people to detect F35s, then the roundabout starts all over again, slightly similar to MAD....
Altitude worked for a while...
A particular type of stealth will work for a while...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philip G has a very good point
The issue is of course that the F-35 has taken/will take so long to reach service in any numbers that the technology will have caught up
Reminds me of the Blenheim - a great step forward when first flown but by the time it came to use in action it was a dead duck
The issue is of course that the F-35 has taken/will take so long to reach service in any numbers that the technology will have caught up
Reminds me of the Blenheim - a great step forward when first flown but by the time it came to use in action it was a dead duck
Lower RCS is never a bad thing. F-35-level stealth - my educated guess, by the way, is that it is no better in that regard than the F-117, probably not as good from sides and rear - would have baffled most detection systems from the 1980s and 1990s. Also, if you employ standoff and escort jamming (the latter from UAVs like MALD-J) you can still benefit from low target RCS.
But is it worth the money and performance trade-offs across all the missions we expect fighters to do? When the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than an F-16 and be otherwise comparable to anything out there, you didn't have to ask that question, but now you do.
If I had to plan a tactical-range force today, I'd use conventional RCS-reduced fighters with EW and cruise missiles and a few Neuron/Taranis/X-47-type things to give the defenders the twitch. Plus a few super-OV-10-type things for CAS/armed ISR when the longest-range threat is MANPADS and I don't want to burn fighter hours.
Killface - Something about never getting a second chance to make a first impression? As you should know perfectly well, B-52s and B-1s have their own mission niches, and quite modest upgrade costs. F-22 upgrade costs are enough to replace the entire force over the decade, and if F-35 would really score 6:1 over an adversary you'd do it.
But is it worth the money and performance trade-offs across all the missions we expect fighters to do? When the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than an F-16 and be otherwise comparable to anything out there, you didn't have to ask that question, but now you do.
If I had to plan a tactical-range force today, I'd use conventional RCS-reduced fighters with EW and cruise missiles and a few Neuron/Taranis/X-47-type things to give the defenders the twitch. Plus a few super-OV-10-type things for CAS/armed ISR when the longest-range threat is MANPADS and I don't want to burn fighter hours.
Killface - Something about never getting a second chance to make a first impression? As you should know perfectly well, B-52s and B-1s have their own mission niches, and quite modest upgrade costs. F-22 upgrade costs are enough to replace the entire force over the decade, and if F-35 would really score 6:1 over an adversary you'd do it.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: US
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh good. Slightly aggressive first posts there by two 'new' members. I think I recognise the style. Time to expand the ignore list.
I'm neutral on the JSF. Its hard to get real information. But lame arguments, are lame no matter where you go. I watched the helmet increase from $1 million dollars to £1 million in 2 posts. I don't think we are all playing with a full deck.
Something about never getting a second chance to make a first impression?