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
Did someone use a buzz phrase generator in writing that piece?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shouldn't think so. Written by a Major, on behalf of a Bird Colonel and bucking for Lt Colonel him/her self?
Hmm, must have my cynical hat on today. Normally works well though.
Hmm, must have my cynical hat on today. Normally works well though.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 20th Jan 2013 at 22:43.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"trade space refinement activity"
Jesus.
Future career: sorted.
Jesus.
"All we're looking for is information," says Rear Admiral Donald Gaddis, the Naval Air Systems Command's (NAVAIR) programme executive officer for tactical aviation. "This particular AoA [analysis of alternatives] is going to be a long one," he adds.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 20th Jan 2013 at 22:47.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will somebody please remind LM just how long (quickly!) Ed Heinemann took to design, build and fly the Douglas A4?
Nearly 3,000 were later made and proves (at least to me) the merits of KISS. (keeping it simple, stupid!)
Seems like a lot of people have forgotten this..........would 2,000 cheaper and simple ac be better able to do the jobs required of them than the 100 or so we will eventually receive? At least all our eggs whould not be in one or two baskets and we would be able to deploy them much more flexibly.
MB
Nearly 3,000 were later made and proves (at least to me) the merits of KISS. (keeping it simple, stupid!)
Seems like a lot of people have forgotten this..........would 2,000 cheaper and simple ac be better able to do the jobs required of them than the 100 or so we will eventually receive? At least all our eggs whould not be in one or two baskets and we would be able to deploy them much more flexibly.
MB
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CourtneyMil:
By '1950s jet' do you mean the A-4?
The only real 'advantage' I can see to the F-35 is that Day One penetration of hostile airspace could be manned. Arguably, that's not necessary even with the current generation of smart(er) weapons.
If we went F-18, we could arguably be a Day Two operator (which we are already anyway). But F-18 with the appropriate stand-off weaponry is a (much less expensive?) Day One proposition.
It might not satisfy some people's shiny toy obsessions but it's pragmatic. And if by Day Two all (or most) of the really nasty stuff has been taken care of, a larger fleet of F-18s is going to be able to put a lot more stuff in a lot more places at the same time.
More and more, F-35 looks like a dud. And - dare I say it - the chariot of choice for medal-hunters.
By '1950s jet' do you mean the A-4?
The only real 'advantage' I can see to the F-35 is that Day One penetration of hostile airspace could be manned. Arguably, that's not necessary even with the current generation of smart(er) weapons.
If we went F-18, we could arguably be a Day Two operator (which we are already anyway). But F-18 with the appropriate stand-off weaponry is a (much less expensive?) Day One proposition.
It might not satisfy some people's shiny toy obsessions but it's pragmatic. And if by Day Two all (or most) of the really nasty stuff has been taken care of, a larger fleet of F-18s is going to be able to put a lot more stuff in a lot more places at the same time.
More and more, F-35 looks like a dud. And - dare I say it - the chariot of choice for medal-hunters.
Last edited by ColdCollation; 21st Jan 2013 at 09:27.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know a lot of folks here are considering the F-18, should we lose the F-35, but going back to a 1950s jet?
Contrary to the F35, it seems like they got the basics right, the aircraft itself is very decent with tons of growth potential.
Apart from the baked in stealth it basically is an F22 performance wise, it has the potential of having a top of the line radar, has good MMI and Helmet and the towed decoy(DaSS), Pirate, ESM-ECM,etc... all of witch can be upgraded over time.
For those that want to work on technologies which are on the cutting edge, maybe a bit of a stretch for now but the following could very well be already in the pipeline;
Forget about Stealth, the longterm research (DARPA) of the US DoD are also putting their emphasis on acitve defence systems iso of relying on Stealth for protection.
This basically frees up a lot of constrictions on the design mandated by stealth.
With the Germans as partners (Rheinmetall) they have a similar technology available putting it right on the edge again.
Rheinmetall Successfully Tests 10-kW Laser Weapons | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News
DARPA is working on derivatives of this project to build an active "shield" for their aircraft;
High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) Programme - Airforce Technology
Last edited by kbrockman; 21st Jan 2013 at 11:03.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman,
...but you won't get Typhoon off a carrier.
I agree that Typhoon fully kitted out should be a way to go but we'd still need something for the QEII and PoW, surely?
Edited to add: on the non-structural stealth front, I seem to recall speculation (it must be over a decade back, now...) that the Russians were exploring plasma generators to confound radar, rather than limiting an airframe aerodynamically by shaping it to guarantee low signatures.
Are we, once again, doggedly continuing to hammer on the front door instead of checking whether the side door or back door are open?
...but you won't get Typhoon off a carrier.
I agree that Typhoon fully kitted out should be a way to go but we'd still need something for the QEII and PoW, surely?
Edited to add: on the non-structural stealth front, I seem to recall speculation (it must be over a decade back, now...) that the Russians were exploring plasma generators to confound radar, rather than limiting an airframe aerodynamically by shaping it to guarantee low signatures.
Are we, once again, doggedly continuing to hammer on the front door instead of checking whether the side door or back door are open?
Last edited by ColdCollation; 21st Jan 2013 at 11:33.
For those saying that the industry has to learn to develop aircraft in less than 20-25 years: What we have to do is forget how to take 20-25 years, which is strictly a post-1980 phenomenon.
The F-4, F-15 and F-16 went through life-cycles that looked like this: 2-3 years from contract to first flight; another 3 years or so to IOC; major upgrades 5-6 years after IOC. The F-4 was produced for about 20 years after first flight and is still in service. The F-16 and F-15 have not been replaced, although they would probabably have been superseded in production a long time ago had not the main source of funds been pre-empted by F-22 (20 years from prototype contract to IOC) and F-35 (probably 23-24 years).
One trouble with taking more than 7 years or so from serious money to IOC is that electronics change vastly over that time. (The first BlackBerry smartphone was released in 2003.) Another is that it is impossible to maintain design expertise or an industrial base.
The F-4, F-15 and F-16 went through life-cycles that looked like this: 2-3 years from contract to first flight; another 3 years or so to IOC; major upgrades 5-6 years after IOC. The F-4 was produced for about 20 years after first flight and is still in service. The F-16 and F-15 have not been replaced, although they would probabably have been superseded in production a long time ago had not the main source of funds been pre-empted by F-22 (20 years from prototype contract to IOC) and F-35 (probably 23-24 years).
One trouble with taking more than 7 years or so from serious money to IOC is that electronics change vastly over that time. (The first BlackBerry smartphone was released in 2003.) Another is that it is impossible to maintain design expertise or an industrial base.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but you won't get Typhoon off a carrier
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley - yup, fair point!
Biggus - but that we could afford to throw them away like super-annuated Hurricanes.
The fleet numbers we're looking at with F-35 means we'll barely be able to afford to look at them in a funny way, much less send them anywhere nasty.
Biggus - but that we could afford to throw them away like super-annuated Hurricanes.
The fleet numbers we're looking at with F-35 means we'll barely be able to afford to look at them in a funny way, much less send them anywhere nasty.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" 2. The next generation is essential to keep the design teams together, even of not put into mass production. In fact a strong recommendation is to keep designing prototypes and buying 1-2 Sqns of each for exactly that purposes, so the skill is there when you need it."
This what the RAF did 1919-1936 - not sure it worked all that well in practise
This what the RAF did 1919-1936 - not sure it worked all that well in practise
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that Typhoon fully kitted out should be a way to go but we'd still need something for the QEII and PoW, surely?
Hindsight is of course, a wonderful thing.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it has the potential of having a top of the line radar, has good MMI and Helmet and the towed decoy(DaSS), Pirate, ESM-ECM,etc... all of witch can be upgraded over time.
Didn't France pull out of the Typhoon programme because of the lack of carrier capability?...and then went on to win that nice big Indian order?
The Indian MMRCA is not for their carriers AFAIK.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 21st Jan 2013 at 15:19.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realize that the VTOL concept has some big advantages but as an alternative, STOBAR is still a possible (intermediate to full CATOBAR maybe) option, no?
According to the Indians and the people at Eurofighter, the changes needed would be minimal and it could go off deck @ MTOW with minimal wind over deck ,heck even the Russians can launch their Su33's at 0-wind with a 190m weighing 38.000kg (4 tons over the max for the US Navy boats IIRC)
From a Chinese forum;
So I don't see why they couldn't use the EF ,which has a better T/W ratio and lower wingload than both the 33T SU33 and optional 38T version.
Certainly if they(EF) would install the stronger engines (up to 26KLbs) and TVC system.
They would need ,at worst, about 550ft feet of runway at 0 wind and MTOW, much less even when doing missions that don't need the AC be loaded till MTOW (BARCAP or FORCAP).
The biggest challenge doesn't seem to be the technical side but rather the contract negotiations which would need to be done with cost in mind ,like not giving the supplier a blank development check and time frame.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
PS Purely hypothetical a STOBAR carrier could even be equipped with something like a Do228 type of VSTOL-AEW platform or Transport with some extra beef-up to strengthen the frame to allow for more powerful engines, a bit of extra fuel and the hook.
According to the Indians and the people at Eurofighter, the changes needed would be minimal and it could go off deck @ MTOW with minimal wind over deck ,heck even the Russians can launch their Su33's at 0-wind with a 190m weighing 38.000kg (4 tons over the max for the US Navy boats IIRC)
From a Chinese forum;
The Soviet Su-33KUB twin seated fighter-bomber weights in at 38 tonnes. This is a weight not seen by US carrier planes. The A-5 was the nightmare of US carrier weighting in at 34-36 tonnes. The yak-44e in planning also reached 38 tonnes. Can these planes really take-off from carriers?
From the 3rd take-off position at 195m, under 0 airspeed, Su-33 can still take-off with 35000kg weight with no dip in take-off profile. On leaving the bow of the ship the plane reaches a speed of 179km/h, reaching the apex height of 30m after 4 seconds, and glides for 6 seconds more before recovery at 312km/h
At 38000kg, the take-off profile is an inverted s shape, with maximum point at 27.4m and minimum height of 20.2m. A recovery glide time of 11 secs and recover speed of 400km/h.
From the 3rd take-off position at 195m, under 0 airspeed, Su-33 can still take-off with 35000kg weight with no dip in take-off profile. On leaving the bow of the ship the plane reaches a speed of 179km/h, reaching the apex height of 30m after 4 seconds, and glides for 6 seconds more before recovery at 312km/h
At 38000kg, the take-off profile is an inverted s shape, with maximum point at 27.4m and minimum height of 20.2m. A recovery glide time of 11 secs and recover speed of 400km/h.
Certainly if they(EF) would install the stronger engines (up to 26KLbs) and TVC system.
They would need ,at worst, about 550ft feet of runway at 0 wind and MTOW, much less even when doing missions that don't need the AC be loaded till MTOW (BARCAP or FORCAP).
The biggest challenge doesn't seem to be the technical side but rather the contract negotiations which would need to be done with cost in mind ,like not giving the supplier a blank development check and time frame.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
PS Purely hypothetical a STOBAR carrier could even be equipped with something like a Do228 type of VSTOL-AEW platform or Transport with some extra beef-up to strengthen the frame to allow for more powerful engines, a bit of extra fuel and the hook.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the Super Hornet already has, not to mention significant extra growth potential.