F-35 Delayed Again

[Jacky Fisher]

the Fleet Air Arm/Royal Air Force will probably be the only users of the F35 when its all said and done.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Jacky Fisher

the Fleet Air Arm/Royal Air Force will probably be the only users of the F35 when its all said and done.

I have a feeling that any NATO navy that has small carriers (Spain, Italy etc) will want them eventually. Those Harriers arn't going to fly forever.

I see Indonesia wanting them too for their baby flattop, and Japan could get in to the carrier buissness again too.

[PeriscopeDepth]

WRONG the F/A-35 is capable of landing on short fields (unpaven fields too IIRC) [/quote]
STOVL B model I'm assuming you're talking about? The least useful to US, most complicated version.

and can launch and trap from a carrier.

IF it is the C model.

Speaking about C model... I wonder if Blue Angels will eventually upgrade to Super Hornet or F-35? I'm betting Super Hornet.

PD

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Got rid of them infavor of ASW carriers. Gee what did the Soviets buy in bulk... could it be Submarines? Plus those ASW carriers were intended to operate in the GIUK gap well with in range of land based fighters from Iceland and Scotland.

I think the RN figured that they wouldn't be in a combat situation without US CV/BG support. I mean, a proper war situation. So investing in complementary rather than competing designs won out.
That, and the rather large anti-militarist feeling in the country :P

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

STOVL B model I'm assuming you're talking about? The least useful to US, most complicated version.

How is that not useful? Takeoff from short or unpaven fields is something the US Military has been lacking for a very long time. What happens when someone bombs and airfield and fighters can't take off? Or if you have to invade a country like Afganstain where there are no pristine airfields to use? This is why the RAF uses the BAe Harrier, and why the USAF is considering the F/A-35B.

IF it is the C model.

Speaking about C model... I wonder if Blue Angels will eventually upgrade to Super Hornet or F-35? I'm betting Super Hornet.

PD

The only major diffrence with the C model is that it has bigger gear undercarage with a double forward wheel, wider wings and anti-corrosion paint. The great thing about the F/A-35 is that each model is basicly the same aircraft with a few changes to the airframe or the additon of a lift fan (which personaly I dislike because its unable to VIFF and is dead weight after takeoff.)

I think the Blue Angles will keep whatever aircraft is more fuel efficent or not needed by front line units.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

How is that not useful? Takeoff from short or unpaven fields is something the US Military has been lacking for a very long time. What happens when someone bombs and airfield and fighters can't take off?

Then what, we're going to base even closer to that threat which is good enough to successfully put holes in a USAF/USMC runway (basing closer is demanded by F-35B's reduced numbers, mission radius, and weapons carriage) in an unprepared airfield? Give me a break. It (forward VTOL basing of fast jets) sounds cool, but really isn't operationally helpful/feasible.

Or if you have to invade a country like Afganstain where there are no pristine airfields to use? This is why the RAF uses the BAe Harrier, and why the USAF is considering the F/A-35B.

Which they have NEVER done. Simply because it's risky. And I don't think any armed service in their right mind is going to be putting a circa $75 million dollar VLO airframe in a place where it is vulnerable to mortar attacks and the like. And BTW, what would have kept F-16s landing at Afghan airfields shortly after it was secured other than security issues? I mean, that's the kind of thing the Seabees and USAF equivalent exist for, right?

The F-35B is useless to USMC (and the US taxpayer in general) because: what does all of 8 F-35s on a Marine deck get you? They cannot support ground forces with any meaning because of the pitiful sortie rate/weapons carriage offered. To move Marines ashore against any real opposition the USMC _needs_ to have its hands held by a REAL carrier group. F-35B is a product to be sold to Navies that can't afford real carriers. R&D funded by the US taxpayer.

The only major diffrence with the C model is that it has bigger gear undercarage with a double forward wheel, wider wings and anti-corrosion paint. The great thing about the F/A-35 is that each model is basicly the same aircraft with a few changes to the airframe or the additon of a lift fan (which personaly I dislike because its unable to VIFF and is dead weight after takeoff.)

Joint in logistics. There is nothing common about where F-35s can be based though.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

How can you sit there and blast the F-35 when every aircraft it is intended to replace has less range than a similarily configured F-35? An F/A-18C - less rnage, F-16 with two bags of gas hanging under its wings - less range, Harrier - not even close, A-10 - Not sure about but does it even matter?

The F-35 is a step up from every aircraft it is intended to replace, so whats the big deal?

On top of that - sortie rate of an F-35 is reduced over its intended aircraft.

Add on here that the F-35 also has much lower maintenence than an F-16, and I don't understand why everyone is complaining? Yes, you can have 3 block 50+ F-16's for the price of 2 F-35's, but better aircraft always command a higher price tag. An F-16 is starting to enter a world where it can't even do its job anymore without a high loss rate - its days are numbered against any decently equipped country.

I'll take the F-35. It is not an F-22, but it is nearly half the cost of an F-22 anyway. I'm not complaining as long as we field both aircraft in some numbers.

-S

PS. The only aircraft I don't think it should replace is the A-10. That thing simply can't be beat for the air support role.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

How can you sit there and blast the F-35 when every aircraft it is intended to replace has less range than a similarily configured F-35?

That is all well and good if we are judging the F-35 by the mission its predecessors were created for - WWIII in Europe. But we are not, that mission does not exist anymore. My argument is NOT that we should buy legacy fighters over F-35 in the bomb truck role. But that we should be buying an X-45C or X-47B type UCAV to play bomb truck.

On top of that - sortie rate of an F-35 is reduced over its intended aircraft.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? You want a high sortie rate, not low.

Add on here that the F-35 also has much lower maintenence than an F-16, and I don't understand why everyone is complaining?

Well it was supposed to... But F-35 WILL cost more per flight hour than an F-16
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2777.html

I'll take the F-35. It is not an F-22, but it is nearly half the cost of an F-22 anyway. I'm not complaining as long as we field both aircraft in some numbers.

Oh we'll surely be taking the F-35. The question is how many. And whether the cost will indeed be half of an F-22. And it doesn't look good for either point.

I am arguing that F-22+UCAV and F/A-18E/F+UCAV would have been a better choice than the F-35. Both capabilites-wise and economics-wise.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

That is all well and good if we are judging the F-35 by the mission its predecessors were created for - WWIII in Europe. But we are not, that mission does not exist anymore. My argument is NOT that we should buy legacy fighters over F-35 in the bomb truck role. But that we should be buying an X-45C or X-47B type UCAV to play bomb truck.

We are getting the UCAV. It is coming in time. Most of the time though, you need more capability than a UCAV so i would not be cuaght dead without the F-35. I did check out Boeing's simulator across from Boeing field though on it's UCAV and it is quite capable, but it's not capable of fighting aircraft. The F-35 is more versatile. One person however will have no problem controlling 4 UCAV's with SEAD being the primary role. I would have brought you guys photo's, but not phone, no camera's, no recorders, no nothing was allowed on site, and if you tried, it was probably a destoryed device in short notice. That building is even kind of cool in that it's on stilts/shocks and seperated from the ground so that no one can detect vibrations to listen in on what is going on inside. When we had our 7.0 Earthquake out here a while back, people in this building never knew we had one because the building absorbed the shock.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? You want a high sortie rate, not low.

Yes, thats what I mean. Turn around time is quick on this plane.

Well it was supposed to... But F-35 WILL cost more per flight hour than an F-16
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2777.html

Well that is not good news. This does not tell me anything though, so why? Is this only during initial deployment? Will this cost go down shortly after? Not enough info to go on.

Oh we'll surely be taking the F-35. The question is how many. And whether the cost will indeed be half of an F-22. And it doesn't look good for either point.

I am arguing that F-22+UCAV and F/A-18E/F+UCAV would have been a better choice than the F-35. Both capabilites-wise and economics-wise

PD

I think we need them all. The UCAV programs make great SEAD platforms. i was quite impressed at my demonstration.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Most of the time though, you need more capability than a UCAV so i would not be cuaght dead without the F-35.

Could you expand a little on this? I'd like to hear your reasoning. I agree that UCAV will never really be suitable for air to air work (at least for a LONG while); but if fake Raptor can get there, so can real Raptor.

Yes, thats what I mean. Turn around time is quick on this plane.

Sortie rate on a manned aircraft will always be inferior to a UCAV. Simply because any man is going to need a minimum of 12 hours (sleep+eats+next brief/preflight)after a 12 hour sortie before he can hop in the jet again. Keep in mind, USAF manning ratio is only 1.25:1 IIRC. F-22 gets arounds this (to a degree) with supercruise.

Well it was supposed to... But F-35 WILL cost more per flight hour than an F-16
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2777.html

Well that is not good news. This does not tell me anything though, so why? Is this only during initial deployment? Will this cost go down shortly after? Not enough info to go on.[/quote]
I trust the GAO more than I trust Lockheed's salesmen. 'nuff said.

I think we need them all. The UCAV programs make great SEAD platforms.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree SUBMAN. I think we'd be better off if we flushed the F-35 down the toilet yesterday.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Could you expand a little on this? I'd like to hear your reasoning. I agree that UCAV will never really be suitable for air to air work (at least for a LONG while); but if fake Raptor can get there, so can real Raptor.

Don't get me wrong! I'll take more F-22's over F-35's in a heartbeat, but I'll take F-35 over the alternatives. F-35 is the next best thing to F-22, so I'm all for it. UCAV has one main drawback in my mind. I was going to write a long reply here, but I erased it since it really comes down to one word - adaptability. It lacks it big time, and the Air Force expects many to get shot down because of this one problem.

Don't get me wrong though, the UCAV has it's place, especially the day that stealth is negated. however, it is not a pilot on site. A good way to put it - It's similar to having a video conference at a company, or having everyone all in one room. Video conference works, but it's not like having a physical presence so that you can direct the conference in the most effective manner.

Sortie rate on a manned aircraft will always be inferior to a UCAV. Simply because any man is going to need a minimum of 12 hours (sleep+eats+next brief/preflight)after a 12 hour sortie before he can hop in the jet again. Keep in mind, USAF manning ratio is only 1.25:1 IIRC. F-22 gets arounds this (to a degree) with supercruise.

In the first Gulf war, they were flying more than one pilot to an aircraft. Dunno what they are doing right now, but this negates that problem and has already been used.

I trust the GAO more than I trust Lockheed's salesmen. 'nuff said.

Not enough in my book. No one said 'why'? Just said it from what I read.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree SUBMAN. I think we'd be better off if we flushed the F-35 down the toilet yesterday.

PD

Well, I'll give you this, it is not an F-22, but I will also state that nothing else besidesw F-22, UCAV or not, is as capable. The short answer - it's better than the alternatives when it comes to the warfighters play book. This is the reason it exists, and the reason people much smarter than I keep making sure it exists.

-S

PS. I forgot to talk about it's (the UCAV's) major vulnerability - It's SATCOM link. In an era where a state like China can shoot down a satillite, this is one tech I would not want to be 100% reliant on. One anti-sat missile and your whole strike force is left to fly it's waypoints on it's own and strike on it's own without any hope for mission re-targetting.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Don't get me wrong! I'll take more F-22's over F-35's in a heartbeat, but I'll take F-35 over the alternatives. F-35 is the next best thing to F-22, so I'm all for it. UCAV has one main drawback in my mind. I was going to write a long reply here, but I erased it since it really comes down to one word - adaptability. It lacks it big time, and the Air Force expects many to get shot down because of this one problem.

Again, you are overstating the threat. The fact is 99% of the time we will be bombing barbarians further into the stone age. I don't need a man that costs several million dollars to train flying a $70+ million airframe that isn't suited to loiter at radius AT ALL to do this. A robot that flies out to point X, can loiter at point X longer, carries the same two PGMs (or eight SDB on BRU-61 rack)that the F-35 does, and costs 1/4-1/3 as much is FAR more suited to this task. Both economically and in its capabilities. And the other 1% of that threat is Chinese. And the F-35 is utterly incapable of bringing the fight to one of the largest countries in the world and penetrating said country in depth in a denied access scenario. Not to mention that we WILL lose a bunch to the Chinese in 2020+. Far more than Desert Storm. And we all know the US public's opinion of casualties.

And as far as adaptability goes, I wouldn't call the F-35 the pinnacle of adaptability. Block I weapons integration will be JDAM/JSOW (though B model can't sling JSOW due to reduced weapons bay size) only for A2G. So for a long while, F-35 will NEED F-15E and F/A-18E/F for "mission support" (by which I mean the ability to sling anything that doesn't fit in F-35 weapons bay or simply isn't integrated because team J$F screwed the SDD phase so badly). $70+ million a pop for a manned VLO cow fighter spec'd interdictor that can only sling two JDAM/JSOW is f*@king ridiculous. There is no other way to see it.

Don't get me wrong though, the UCAV has it's place, especially the day that stealth is negated. however, it is not a pilot on site. A good way to put it - It's similar to having a video conference at a company, or having everyone all in one room. Video conference works, but it's not like having a physical presence so that you can direct the conference in the most effective manner.

BAD analogy. The assumption that you need a man in the cockpit to fly an airliner profile to a point where he pickles a GPS guided munition and then RTBs is completely ridiculous. The vast majority of Day 1/Raid 1 targets are fixed. And since 1991 UCAV's have been flying precision strike in the form of cruise weapons. Granted, there will be cases where you want to retarget the UCAV. But this should be done with a manned air presence directing the cow bomber UCAV to a different target. Not with the majority numbers of manned cow fighter interdictors.

And the day that stealth is negated is coming a lot sooner than you think if we whore out the tech manufacturing processes needed for it in the name of a business model. In the same way the Norwegians and Japanese sold the Soviets the tech they needed to make quiet submarines in the 1980s. Not to mention anything of hunting SAMs and DEW weapons.

In the first Gulf war, they were flying more than one pilot to an aircraft. Dunno what they are doing right now, but this negates that problem and has already been used.

We may have very well had a 2:1 manning ratio in '91 before the post Cold War cuts. But since then, the US military has had its nuts cut. And after we get out of Iraq, they WILL have more drawdowns. Which will make F-35 even more unaffordable. Keeping the cost of the F-35 down to halfway affordable absolutely requires mass buys by USAF/USN/USMC and export countries. Which is looking less and less likely. Especially if a Dem wins in November.

Not enough in my book. No one said 'why'? Just said it from what I read.

It really shouldn't be that surprising. Every time an aircraft is replaced and its operating costs are touted as being lower, it doesn't turn out that way. F-4->F-15->F-22 being another case.

This is the reason it exists, and the reason people much smarter than I keep making sure it exists.

The reason it exists is because we can't mass export the F-22 and mass export is where the money is. And I stopped believing that my government "knows better" a while ago. Government/nation more and more can be called Federated Trade Conglomerate. But that's a different thread.

PS. I forgot to talk about it's (the UCAV's) major vulnerability - It's SATCOM link. In an era where a state like China can shoot down a satillite, this is one tech I would not want to be 100% reliant on. One anti-sat missile and your whole strike force is left to fly it's waypoints on it's own and strike on it's own without any hope for mission re-targetting.

Another one is bandwith. There simply isn't enough SATCOM bandwith to run a large UCAV force currently. Both can be overcome through: tech advances in the next decade, as well as directing UCAV's through manned aircraft. When needed. Autonomous UCAVs aren't as big a problem as you make them out to be, just as autonomous Tomahawk missiles weren't. Don't think the UCAV has any more technical hurdles than a manned aircraft that supposedly fits three seperate mission roles into one airframe while VLO'd.

PD

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Then what, we're going to base even closer to that threat which is good enough to successfully put holes in a USAF/USMC runway (basing closer is demanded by F-35B's reduced numbers, mission radius, and weapons carriage) in an unprepared airfield? Give me a break. It (forward VTOL basing of fast jets) sounds cool, but really isn't operationally helpful/feasible.

Its called dispersial. The Russians and Sweeds have been doing it for a long time. The Gulf War proved that airfields are very vulnerable to attack. An intact runway is a prime target, thats why countries like North Korea have hangers built in to mountians and Israel has huge well equipped HAS bunkers capable of full service for their aircraft. Being able to hide a jet in some trees and launch from a highway is a tremendus asset.

Which they have NEVER done. Simply because it's risky. And I don't think any armed service in their right mind is going to be putting a circa $75 million dollar VLO airframe in a place where it is vulnerable to mortar attacks and the like. And BTW, what would have kept F-16s landing at Afghan airfields shortly after it was secured other than security issues? I mean, that's the kind of thing the Seabees and USAF equivalent exist for, right?

Look at a place like Korea. There you don't have much choice unless they want to fly all the way from Japan to the front line.

The F-35B is useless to USMC (and the US taxpayer in general) because: what does all of 8 F-35s on a Marine deck get you? They cannot support ground forces with any meaning because of the pitiful sortie rate/weapons carriage offered. To move Marines ashore against any real opposition the USMC _needs_ to have its hands held by a REAL carrier group. F-35B is a product to be sold to Navies that can't afford real carriers. R&D funded by the US taxpayer.

Its only 8 in an assault role for a Wasp, it can carry 20 plus 6 ASW helos in its Sea Control Role.

Joint in logistics. There is nothing common about where F-35s can be based though.

PD

A F/A-35B and C can be based on the same airfield as a F/A-35A or F-22, the reverse is not true.

Would would you like the Navy and Corps to do? The Navy isn't going to buy a Supercarrier sized ship for its MEUs so they can have a large airwing, and they are not going to put billions of $ and a decade of research in to devloping a Navalized F-22. The F/A-35 is the only thing thats going to keep the Navy and Corps in the manned fixwing buisness in the 2010's and 2020's when it come to fighting expaditionary warfare.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Another one is bandwith. There simply isn't enough SATCOM bandwith to run a large UCAV force currently. Both can be overcome through: tech advances in the next decade, as well as directing UCAV's through manned aircraft. When needed. Autonomous UCAVs aren't as big a problem as you make them out to be, just as autonomous Tomahawk missiles weren't. Don't think the UCAV has any more technical hurdles than a manned aircraft that supposedly fits three seperate mission roles into one airframe while VLO'd.

PD

A Manned aircraft has the same vulnerabltiy as a orbiting Sat, it can be shot down. And at a much lower cost than launching an ASAT missile or putting a H&K Sat in orbit (Although if a orbiting DEW system is put in high orbit its Anti-Sat potential becomes amazingly high, more than enugph to off set its cost). Having a modified 737 or whatnot flying control for UCAVs will insure that our enemies will target that aircraft with the same vigor as the Soviets would have targeted our aircraft carriers back in the cold war.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Hi TLAM,

As for Korea, we were flying P-80s out of Japan during the Korean War. I don't see the problem with flying from Japan, it is a helluva lot shorter than OIF or OEF missions. And the notion that we need a VTOL VLO fighter to defeat the North Koreans is laughable, IMO.

Its only 8 in an assault role for a Wasp, it can carry 20 plus 6 ASW helos in its Sea Control Role.

And they aren't going to be doing any assaulting from that Wasp in that config either. I really don't see any reason for an LHA to be in "sea control (with all of 20 VTOL airframes, giggle)". The Marines should stick to assaulting. They will never be able to "be their own air support" in the face of ANY real threat.

Would would you like the Navy and Corps to do?

For one, realize that the justification for LHA type ships in a Guadalcanal type scenario is dead. Second, convince me that the USMC even should be in the fixed wing biz. As for what I think they should do, what if every fixed wing flying service bought into UCAV with a tailhook? Truely common basing. And real reach and power in numbers. We haven't ever "needed" a VTOL fighter other than to let the Marines pretend to have an airwing on their LHAs. We certainly don't need one now.

The F/A-35 is the only thing thats going to keep the Navy and Corps in the manned fixwing buisness in the 2010's and 2020's when it come to fighting expaditionary warfare.

You're assuming I think the USMC and USN being in "manned fixwing business" in the 2020s is a good thing. For the USN, 10-20 F-35s + 20-30 SuperBugs on a deck is not a real airwing. Certainly not on a carrier designed for 90 aircraft airwings. For the USMC, they will never have a real airwing anyways. 24 Super bugs + 60 or more UCAVs is getting back to a real air wing with a real sustainable sortie rate and reach.

On a side note, I think we are going to have to get away from the super carrier notion in the near future due to fiscal/operational realities. But LHA is not the way. IMO, diesel powered mini carriers with and air wing of 12 manned fixwings + 30-40 UCAVs is the way.

PD