F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of focusing on such secondary issues, political and defence decision-makers would be better off contemplating why the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare are planning to make the F-35 the centrepiece of their operations for the first half of the 21st century.
Can't see G6 entering service before 2030 either, given the length of time the '22 & '35 took from 'prototype' (YF-22/X-35) flight to in service, both around 14 years.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 28th Dec 2014 at 12:22.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now in support of Hempy's article regarding the superiority of the F-35 in the three services role, I offer this:
However, George failed to mention that all three services will have F-35s designed in one way or another to accommodate this feature whether it is present or not:
Therefore, to conclude that the USAF or USN versions will be as capable as LM projects is highly questionable, IMHO. The US Marine version won the contest as to having the least compromised aircraft. What makes me wonder about the F-35 and the Marines is this article written by a former Marine:
With EF21, Marines Struggle to Remain Relevant
So, how close does the F-35 come to the F-22 capability? Here is the F-22 capability as a starting point:
George Standridge, VP of Business Development of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air superiority.
Therefore, to conclude that the USAF or USN versions will be as capable as LM projects is highly questionable, IMHO. The US Marine version won the contest as to having the least compromised aircraft. What makes me wonder about the F-35 and the Marines is this article written by a former Marine:
With EF21, Marines Struggle to Remain Relevant
So, how close does the F-35 come to the F-22 capability? Here is the F-22 capability as a starting point:
I am a civilian, I also have a strong interest in defence matters and lurk in here so I have some idea of what is really going on, as opposed to the junk fed to me by journo's or politicians. I don't post much as I can't contribute to the debates as I often lack sufficient knowledge to do so.
So I hope no one will jump all over me but speaking as someone who is going to be paying for the F35B in UK service and will be relying on it to protect the nation (and my tender skin) I just have to say I am completely unimpressed by this overpriced abortion. Reading Hempy's post gives me an itchy feeling between my shoulder blades and an overwhelming urge to say bull****. If the F35 is so capable, why is the USN so keen to increase their F18G fleet, Australia buying 12 Growlers of their own and the USMC snatching every ex-USN EA6B as they become available to support the F35 in service.
No one has ever built a AAM which is 100% guaranteed to hit, so I am pretty sure AMRAAM isn't it nor ASRAAM or AIM9X. It is quite possible that even if a pair of fully loaded F35's came up against 16 PAK FA they are going to use all that wonderful data fusion to get a superb 3D view of being out turned and shredded.
I will be very happy to be wrong on this.
So I hope no one will jump all over me but speaking as someone who is going to be paying for the F35B in UK service and will be relying on it to protect the nation (and my tender skin) I just have to say I am completely unimpressed by this overpriced abortion. Reading Hempy's post gives me an itchy feeling between my shoulder blades and an overwhelming urge to say bull****. If the F35 is so capable, why is the USN so keen to increase their F18G fleet, Australia buying 12 Growlers of their own and the USMC snatching every ex-USN EA6B as they become available to support the F35 in service.
No one has ever built a AAM which is 100% guaranteed to hit, so I am pretty sure AMRAAM isn't it nor ASRAAM or AIM9X. It is quite possible that even if a pair of fully loaded F35's came up against 16 PAK FA they are going to use all that wonderful data fusion to get a superb 3D view of being out turned and shredded.
I will be very happy to be wrong on this.
PG - The Block 3F and later F-35 is supposed to have four internal AMRAAMs (although I have to say I have yet to see a photo of even a fit check).
It's therefore possible to construct a scenario where four F-35s against 16 adversaries destroy eight of them without assuming silly high Pks. However, this almost has to assume that Red is unaware of anything untoward until the Amraams go active.
However, it does not take any classified information to understand that the real world will diverge from this ideal, if and when the adversaries have more warning of the attack and the ability to respond with evasion, EW and expendables.
Also, it is common sense that the always challenging issue of detecting/tracking/IDing without being detected oneself (LPI/LPD) has been made more difficult as adversaries have reduced their signature and improved (massively) their active and passive EW.
Finally, you really don't want to be in a situation when you have exhausted all your weapons without either killing all the adversaries or expending their (larger) magazines, particularly when the remaining -off adversaries are faster than you.
It's therefore possible to construct a scenario where four F-35s against 16 adversaries destroy eight of them without assuming silly high Pks. However, this almost has to assume that Red is unaware of anything untoward until the Amraams go active.
However, it does not take any classified information to understand that the real world will diverge from this ideal, if and when the adversaries have more warning of the attack and the ability to respond with evasion, EW and expendables.
Also, it is common sense that the always challenging issue of detecting/tracking/IDing without being detected oneself (LPI/LPD) has been made more difficult as adversaries have reduced their signature and improved (massively) their active and passive EW.
Finally, you really don't want to be in a situation when you have exhausted all your weapons without either killing all the adversaries or expending their (larger) magazines, particularly when the remaining -off adversaries are faster than you.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that LO, if and when 3F is released, with the ability to carry possibly 4 internal AMRAAMs surely the best the F35 could hope to achieve is 4:1, leaving a basically defenceless plane, still quite a way from 8:1.
I was talking about the sort of journalist who sees doing celebrity puff pieces as a promotion rather than an excursion to hell. I was not talking about the kind who try to get things right.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some intellectual dishonesty going on here.
Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?
A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.
As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.
The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.
Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?
A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.
As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.
The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks GK121..any excuse!
Some intellectual dishonesty going on here.
Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?
A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.
As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.
The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.
Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?
A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.
As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.
The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.
GK - Correct, but it underscores the larger point. U.S. fighters since the 1980s have enjoyed both superior weapons/sensors and better performance than their adversaries. The latter translates into engagement control: against any adversary other than the Su-27, any modern Western fighter has been able to disengage at will and (as you point out) to return tomorrow to continue campaign-level attrition. (The MiG-29 has speed, agility and acceleration but lacks the fuel to extend an engagement.) Will the F-35 retain that advantage against the Su-35, J-10 or J-11?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy, Thank you for this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=5hV8W4EzXRU
I'm utterly depressed by the performance of the chaps answering the questions.
The level of assumption and apparent complancy is akin to the worst fanboys.
Alongside that the lack of answers to questions and sheer lack of knowledge is painful.
The whole performance screams protecting little empires rather than seeking the best solution.
If i were a member of the Australian armed forces i'd struggle to face being lead by that crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=5hV8W4EzXRU
I'm utterly depressed by the performance of the chaps answering the questions.
The level of assumption and apparent complancy is akin to the worst fanboys.
Alongside that the lack of answers to questions and sheer lack of knowledge is painful.
The whole performance screams protecting little empires rather than seeking the best solution.
If i were a member of the Australian armed forces i'd struggle to face being lead by that crowd.
LO:
Thanks for the comments on the Aus journey to F-35.
Kill ratios and predictions by VP's of LM ... projections made that may someday be put to the test at which point one will know the real number.
F-18G. Woff, I may be wrong, but the USN discovered in the past 10-15 years that airborne EWM/EW/ECM capability is a high demand mission both during a "big fight" and during COIN and other "smaller" fights. I suspect that the original numbers authorized were less than the service asked for, and that later plus ups included three considerations:
1. Getting what was originally asked for
2. Congressional pressure to keep production up for a constituency
3. Revision of requirements in light of the EA-6B usage and demand from 2001-2014 in various ops.
That's a guess, of course, informed by modest experience (at best) in operations and acquisition/programming/politics and the interface thereof.
Thanks for the comments on the Aus journey to F-35.
Kill ratios and predictions by VP's of LM ... projections made that may someday be put to the test at which point one will know the real number.
F-18G. Woff, I may be wrong, but the USN discovered in the past 10-15 years that airborne EWM/EW/ECM capability is a high demand mission both during a "big fight" and during COIN and other "smaller" fights. I suspect that the original numbers authorized were less than the service asked for, and that later plus ups included three considerations:
1. Getting what was originally asked for
2. Congressional pressure to keep production up for a constituency
3. Revision of requirements in light of the EA-6B usage and demand from 2001-2014 in various ops.
That's a guess, of course, informed by modest experience (at best) in operations and acquisition/programming/politics and the interface thereof.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: this link posted in #5537
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...l%2024Mar1.pdf
Go to the homepage of the Williams Foundation, and look at the scroll at the bottom of the page. Just about every contractor involved with the F-35 program is represented (presumably donors/sponsors)
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE, Konigsberg....
It's like the Australian version of Second Line of Defense, Breaking Defense, etc. In other words, paid speech.
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...l%2024Mar1.pdf
Go to the homepage of the Williams Foundation, and look at the scroll at the bottom of the page. Just about every contractor involved with the F-35 program is represented (presumably donors/sponsors)
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE, Konigsberg....
It's like the Australian version of Second Line of Defense, Breaking Defense, etc. In other words, paid speech.
LW - I believe one factor in the push for more EA-18s is the demonstration that you can use three Growlers with TTNT datalink and TDOA (time difference of arrival) to locate emitters very quickly and with targeting-grade accuracy. This makes you want to put three EAs up where otherwise you might have used two. Hence, more aircraft on ship.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: in my combat underpants
Age: 53
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple more articles relevant to this discussion
The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake - The Atlantic
The Tragedy of the American Military - The Atlantic
The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake - The Atlantic
The Tragedy of the American Military - The Atlantic
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even that most parochial of F-35 critics would tell you the "$1.5 trillion" meme is incorrect and has been proven several times to be so, right LO?
Once you see that headline, it's really not worth reading of watching any further...
Once you see that headline, it's really not worth reading of watching any further...
I don't use the trillion-dollar numbers myself - it's the astronomical CPFH that forms part of it that is scary - but, for the record, the first person to call JSF a trillion-dollar program was Micky Blackwell of LockMart in 1996.