F35 cancelled..by marines

[alex]

As for BVR, please note that todays fighter use visual ID at distances well beyond 100km. Tiffie and Rafale both have built-in powerful sensors for that, many other fighters fly around with pods which provide exact that capabilities. BVR isn't firing "blind" at a target anymore. Maybe we should rethink the expression, as it is misleading.

Alex

[Alan P]

Not seen it bow and fly backwards yet , and it can't Viff in mid-flight.

I'm sure Marine pilots will be devastated at losing such a critical capability.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Brokenedge

[Truro Model Builder]

One of the reasons we went for the F-35B in the first place was a study that showed we would need three carriers for the CTOL aircraft - one for operations, one on refit and one for training - either that, or do training in the USN system. The thoughts were that training on a CTOL carrier aircraft was time intensive and therefore expensive, and carrier qualification needs to be kept up to date. where as experience had shown that STOVL qualification on the Harrier could be done relatively easily, with most pilots only needing a short time period to get up to speed for carrier ops after a spell away.

So we went for the F-35B because it would be the cheaper option... Only the equivalent of one air group needed as only one carrier would be available at any one time. Shame it's the least capable of the lot. Overweight, less range and less payload. Oh, and the unit cost higher than the A or C.

That turned out well for us.

[Alan P]

So we went for the F-35B because it would be the cheaper option... Only the equivalent of one air group needed as only one carrier would be available at any one time. Shame it's the least capable of the lot. Overweight, less range and less payload. Oh, and the unit cost higher than the A or C.

That turned out well for us.

Thankfully, yes. The "least capable" of the lot still happens to be more capable than anything else we have, or could have had.

[Slater]

The US Marines are supposed to declare IOC next month for the F-35B. I guess we'll see.

[Nigel Foster60]

I think there is a big question over the number that will finally be purchased. When you think there will need to be enough aircraft for the trials units, say 6 aircraft at least. The aircraft for the OCU, say 15 aircraft and the one carrier in service can hold 36 aircraft in 3(?) squadrons before you equip any RAF squadrons for land based missions. Then there is attrition. With just two land based Squadrons you have to be looking at a total of 80+. I cannot see that number being purchased. God forbid we have a war and actually have to use them! Re run of Falklands with two carriers required!

Nigel

[XV107]

17 is the T&ES - when it was on Typhoon it only had 4 airframes. The OCU is likely to be rather smaller as well - not for reasons of finance, but because the way in which pilots will be trained to operated the F-35 will involve a lot of work in the simulator, far, far more than previously - which means that the unit establishment for the OCU is likely to be rather smaller. It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that some conversion might be done in the US or at some establishment akin to the old TTTE.

The publicly-announced plan for the carrier is that it will carry 12 aircraft routinely, surging to the maximum of 36 when required. Thus based on the buy which has been (sort of) announced so far of 48 (although we've signed up for 14 of these so far, IIRC), we would have enough (just) to operate at surge capacity with a couple - no more than that - attrition reserves to boot.

Also, there are no carrier-only squadrons - Joint Force Lightning (or whatever it's ultimately called) will operate in the same manner as JFH did, both land and sea based. This could, of course, have implications for covering two wars/deployments at once and there is a real risk of the force being stretched if more aren't purchased. There are all sorts of variables at work here, though - there are studies about force structure, the balance between Typhoon and Lightning in terms of numbers/force structures, etc, etc and throw in the forthcoming defence review, the decision to be slow off the mark in buying all the aircraft it appears that we might want becomes a little more comprehensible.

[Giorgio N]

BVR being only good in theory ? Maybe it would be useful to have a look at the air combat experiences of the last 30 years...

Viffing ? A manouver that may looks good in the newspapers but not pilot would use as it's only good to get killed by your enemy's Nr.2

Sounds to me that some of the criticism against the F-35 is based on some unusual views of modern air combat.

In a way I did think V/STOL capability should have been developed as a separate aircraft from the F-35. VTOL is a complex system as already mentioned and probably added an unnecessary complication to development of the F-35.

This is a thought that many observers share and has led in the US to some criticism of the USMC insistence on VTOL capabilities. The USMC is one of the main proponents of the F-35B however their operational experience with the AV-8B has shown that these aircrafts actually never employed vertical take off when in combat.

After the initial VTOL craze of the late '60s, this capability has mainly been requested by users who want to base aircrafts at sea without having access to larger carriers. It's no surprise that the only customers for the Harrier have been from such users, with the USCM requirements only slightly different.

VTOL aircrafts are indeed more expensive than conventional ones (in the late '80s an AV-8B costed almost as much as an F/A-18 while having much lower combat capabilities) but allows smaller navies to save on the huge costs of purchasing and running conventional carriers. Now I'm not going into the debate on whether it's better for the UK to go with conventional carriers or VTOL, but it's important that all aspects are considered when entering such a debate.

[Slater]

I believe the lift-fan equipped F-35B actually dictated the overall size of all the variants. The aircraft would have been a bit smaller (so I've heard) if not for the VSTOL requirement.

[magwitch]

So we went for the F-35B because it would be the cheaper option... Only the equivalent of one air group needed as only one carrier would be available at any one time. Shame it's the least capable of the lot. Overweight, less range and less payload. Oh, and the unit cost higher than the A or C.

That turned out well for us.

The B is far cheaper than the C for carrier aviation. The USN CATOBAR doctrine requires n+1 carrier air wings where n is the number of carriers. So going for the C would have required the FAA to staff three complete air wings - one working up, one deployed and one recuperating. Also, all of these aviators would have to be fed through the USN training program to qualify them (as the French, Indians and Brazilians do). Unsustainably expensive.

I think there is a big question over the number that will finally be purchased.

My guess would be OEU+OCU+2 squadrons, so maybe 24-30 held in a common pool.

[Truro Model Builder]

Thankfully, yes. The "least capable" of the lot still happens to be more capable than anything else we have, or could have had.

Seeing as we have no carrier capable aircraft currently in service, I can only agree.

The B is far cheaper than the C for carrier aviation. The USN CATOBAR doctrine requires n+1 carrier air wings where n is the number of carriers. So going for the C would have required the FAA to staff three complete air wings - one working up, one deployed and one recuperating. Also, all of these aviators would have to be fed through the USN training program to qualify them (as the French, Indians and Brazilians do). Unsustainably expensive.

That is because the US Navy can afford to do so. Look at how the French manage with only one carrier and one air wing for CATOBAR ops. And that is with sending their carrier pilots to train with the US Navy.

What is unsustainably expensive is having two stonking great carriers with at the very most 48 aircraft to not only operate from them but to be available for everything else the Tornado GR Force is required to do. That's if we ever actually get anywhere near that number, which I doubt.

[Nigel Foster60]

The world is a much more volatile place than during the cold war when we all knew where we stood.

Given that apart from the Typhoons which require a great long runway this will be our only combat aircraft the government of what ever shade will have to wake up and order a decent number.

That said I struggle to understand why the Red Arrows that represent the nation fly 35 year old Hawks, even if they are like Triggers broom!

Why are they not flying Mk2's? Will it ever happen, and then there is 100 Squadron let alone the Hawks at Yeovilton.

British jobs, place in the world, Advertisement for British industry? Let alone the fine folks in our Armed Services.

Sorry, rant over.

Nigel

[Slater]

It will be quite a few years down the road, but I can see the USAF's Thunderbirds being equipped with F-35A's (maybe even specially built for them).

[bentwaters81tfw]

It will be quite a few years down the road, but I can see the USAF's Thunderbirds being equipped with F-35A's (maybe even specially built for them).

:rofl:

[Knight_Flyer]

That said I struggle to understand why the Red Arrows that represent the nation fly 35 year old Hawks, even if they are like Triggers broom!

Why are they not flying Mk2's? Will it ever happen, and then there is 100 Squadron let alone the Hawks at Yeovilton.

British jobs, place in the world, Advertisement for British industry? Let alone the fine folks in our Armed Services.

Sorry, rant over.

Nigel

I think it might have something to do with cost. The Blue Angels fly Hornets that are quite near the end of their operational life. Although the Thunderbirds appear to fly F-16's that can be made combat ready if required. However I did hear both these teams had cancelled their tours last year - because of cost.

[Alan P]

The Thunderbirds are a full-time squadron with a very pronounced PR/ambassadorial purpose. It would seem a real waste of resources to equip them with modern, vastly capable, frontline jets, but while the USAF has the budget, let them play! I'd be surprised if sequestration didn't lead to them using second-echelon or training aircraft eventually, if they are to continue as a full-time squadron. I suppose the same argument counts against using Hawk T.2s for the Reds - they are relatively scarce, and have a much greater capability than the T.1A - it would seem a waste of resources in the cost/benefit analysis.

[Slater]

The Thunderbirds have flown F-4's and F-105's in the past. Not exactly the cheapest aircraft they could have selected.

I can see them using specially modified F-35's that have been gutted/stripped of all the expensive/classified/stealthy bits and painted in a suitable scheme. I believe that's actually been done in the past with certain aircraft.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Slater

[Procopius]

However I did hear both these teams had cancelled their tours last year - because of cost.

That was a political issue relating to infighting between the legislative and executive branches of the US government.

[Alan P]

The Thunderbirds have flown F-4's and F-105's in the past. Not exactly the cheapest aircraft they could have selected.

I can see them using specially modified F-35's that have been gutted/stripped of all the expensive/classified/stealthy bits and painted in a suitable scheme. I believe that's actually been done in the past with certain aircraft.

That's certainly the case with the Blue Angels, but bear in mind the F-4s and F-105s the USAF used were not front line jets at the time (F-4C and F-105B respectively).

If it did happen, I'd like to see them using F-22s, possibly the most creative and definitely noisy display in the world!

[Giorgio N]

That's certainly the case with the Blue Angels, but bear in mind the F-4s and F-105s the USAF used were not front line jets at the time (F-4C and F-105B respectively).

If it did happen, I'd like to see them using F-22s, possibly the most creative and definitely noisy display in the world!

The Thunderbirds never used the F-4C, they only used the F-4E. This was the standard combat aircraft of the days for many USAF units.

In any case the Thunderbirds have almost always used combat aircrafts, apart from the T-38 years. The Thunderbirds are seen as ambassadors for the USAF and the US aerospace industry, having the team on the latest combat aircrafts is a must. As you said, they can afford it, they are right in doing this.

I would not be surprised to see them moving on the F-35 at some point. As their aircrafts are stripped of most equipment anyway, the F-35 may well do better then many think in their hands. I mean, the Phantom wasn't really the most manouverable aircraft anyway... seeing as the Thunderbirds routine is not really based on very tight manouvers, even a less manouverable aircraft would suit them well.

The Red Arrows on the other hand have never used combat aircrafts, there would be no point in changing their mounts as long as the T.1s can do the job

[PhantomBigStu]

red arrows future is in doubt, the T1 have to be scrapped in 2020 as their at the end of their service life, and with the T2's at 22m each, 220 million+ total costs in one big hit, doubt the tory government will greenlight it in an election year.....

[Av8fan]

Ski jump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04vsfUg7ZOY

[Slater]

Looks like testing is proceeding satisfactorily:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/06/19/royal-air-force-f35b-launches-paveway-iv-weapon.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

[Simon Cornes]

red arrows future is in doubt, the T1 have to be scrapped in 2020 as their at the end of their service life, and with the T2's at 22m each, 220 million+ total costs in one big hit, doubt the tory government will greenlight it in an election year.....

Wonder if the T2 can have the new nose swapped for a T1 version and have T1 tips? True, a little scarce but then maybe the answer is to zero hour the T1 airframes?

Sorry - thread sort of hijacked!

Simon

[Sgt.Squarehead]

It's primarily an air superiority fighter, but is quite capable at ground attack as ISIS has found out.

WTF?

Why would you possibly need to use F22s against ISIS?

Which brings us to the big problem with the F35.....It's much vaunted 'advantages' are minimised against any major player, if we ever test the reality of it, we will be facing an imminent nuclear exchange, so it will all be a bit irrelevant really, won't it?

Whereas against the sort of bit-part players that we can actually get away with bombing, it's total and unneccessary overkill.

But it does generate an awful lot of revenue for the companies that build it, so I suppose it's all OK in the end.