Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sign in to follow this  
viper-30

F35 cancelled..by marines

Recommended Posts

What others collectively fail to grasp is the extraordinary dependence that the F-35's modern avionics, fly by wire, data processing and connectivity add to the support requirements. It doesn't really matter how well this all works if ALIS says that the jet can't go and play. Likewise, the point of stealth, advanced acquisition and track/kill capabilities is irrelevant if the F-35 can't even enter the battlefield.

I think that's vastly overstating the potential risks of such a system. Every single Airbus or Boeing commercial aircraft built in the space of the past fifteen years has a health monitoring system that is roughly analogous to ALIS. This isn't some sort of revolution: its considered almost basic capabilities airlines have been utilizing for over a decade... at least since the introduction of the 777. Tens of thousands of aircraft fly every day with an HMS... and somehow the F-35 is going to fail because of it? Even the C-130Js use a variation of this system called DTADS. Few, to no complaints there.

The only reason why these systems have not been included in modern fighter aircraft is because they are all old designs and it would be too costly to retrofit them. But the value is there.The way I see ALIS is that we can either keep fighting wars like its 1985, with inefficient and unresponsive maintenence and logistical set ups, or we can enter the 2000s, and take advantage of some basic technologies to improve our fighting capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happier if we had stayed with the F-35C rather than switching back to the F-35B. That myriad of doors and hatches looks very pretty but the more moving parts there are the easier it is for something to get stuck, or to quote Commander Montgomery Scott: The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

And DO NOT get me started on the lift fan stupidity. There was a reason everybody -except the Soviet Navy- abandoned that concept back in the 1970s.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buccanneers, thats what we need more Buccanneers............Simples!

My thoughts exactly but only those ones that come in EDSG!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does this mean we get the Harrier back ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does this mean we get the Harrier back ?

I think they're all cut up into little bitty pieces now, aren't they? I don't think Britmodeller could rebuild them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're all cut up into little bitty pieces now, aren't they? I don't think Britmodeller could rebuild them!

We could buy them back from the other countries that still use them and give them a 21st century make over :winkgrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is a cheaper, smaller more nimble British made VTOL aircraft that has less to go wrong :doh:

Anyone know of one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is a cheaper, smaller more nimble British made VTOL aircraft that has less to go wrong :doh:

Anyone know of one?

:hmmm::shrug::fraidnot: ( :wicked:;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly but only those ones that come in EDSG!

Of course, that goes without saying but then I don't think there were any other schemes out there.

Although I understand a two bob, part time, amatuer service painted their 2nd hand versions green, grey and pink :wicked:

What we need is a cheaper, smaller more nimble British made VTOL aircraft that has less to go wrong :doh:

Anyone know of one?

This one?

http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/rollsroyce_bedstead.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One point is being overlooked: F-35 is an attack aircraft, not an air superiority fighter. The F-16 was originally an AS fighter (lightweight compared to the F-15) and as such had a different design emphasis (aka 'priority') than the F-35. It only later became a 'bomb truck'. So ACM comparisons with the F-35 are analogous to comparing the F-16 to the A-7! The F-35 has capability to defend itself very well, but it wasn't designed to "dog-fight", which is where critics such as Peirre Sprey (who has an invested interest in the F-16 & it's conceptual basis) seem to be coming from. Apples & oranges, anyone? Perhaps compare the F-35 to an Airbus next and decry its lack of 'load carrying capacity'.... ;^D

That old video is a perfect example of what happens when 'scandal journalists' try and tackle a seriously complex & technology-based issue. I almost wet myself when the narrator stated how the pilot's comments about the envelope translated from "pilot speak" into the F-35 being a "warplane not ready for war"...when the understandably cautious exploration of such a costly piece of equipment's capabilities is still ongoing - not to mention classified.

Brings to mind the debate about F-15's & F-16's back in the day...

Regards, Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is a cheaper, smaller more nimble British made VTOL aircraft that has less to go wrong :doh:

Anyone know of one?

Less to go wrong compared to what ? There used to be a cheaper (but not cheap, for the performance achieved it was a very expensive aircraft) smaller British VTOL aircraft that however had enough things that could go wrong, so much that had an accident rate from 3 to 5 times higher than the contemporary combat aircrafts...

Vertical take off comes at a cost, no matter how simple the system used is, it will always be more complex and expensive than a conventional aircraft

Edited by Giorgio N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idle thought, but has anyone 'viffed' an F-35B?

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we need is a cheaper, smaller more nimble British made VTOL aircraft that has less to go wrong

Actually, that's exactly what we decided we didn't need.

Besides, if McDonnell Douglas hadn't elected to modify and upgrade the Harrier through the AV-8B programme, it would have been obsolete by the mid-80s.

And there is absolutely nothing that the AV-8B can do better than the F-35B. Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Knight_Flyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idle thought, but has anyone 'viffed' an F-35B?

Trevor

:rofl: :rofl:

By the time they had got all their doors open and systems up to speed, the moment would be gone.

All this BVR is fine in theory, but in a combat situation, theory often goes out of the door. At some point, warplanes are going to get up close and personal with enemy a/c. Then lets see how all this high tech theory pans out.

Wait till it goes to Red Flag, against something a tad more agile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rofl: :rofl:

By the time they had got all their doors open and systems up to speed, the moment would be gone.

All this BVR is fine in theory, but in a combat situation, theory often goes out of the door. At some point, warplanes are going to get up close and personal with enemy a/c. Then lets see how all this high tech theory pans out.

Wait till it goes to Red Flag, against something a tad more agile.

No, BVR is not theory, for crying out loud. It is the ideal engagement, providing maximum offensive advantage for minimum exposure. The reason aircraft have been getting up close and personal is usually a question of positive identification, which requires visual ID under most recently applied rules of engagement. Great expense has been put into making solid BVR electronic ID possible, mostly by matching databases of radar signatures, engine compressor faces and emissions. Unfortunately the political requirement has outweighed the technological capability. Part of the F-35's quantum leap is putting EID at the heart of the system, meaning that rules of engagement can permit BVR combat with a much higher chance of putting down a bad guy rather than a friendly or civilian target.

No-one needs reminding of the fatalities and political embarrassment that have resulted from mistaken identity. Take that out of the equation, and it makes turning, visual combat even more unlikely.

I don't know why you are intent on making me have to beat this drum over and over again, but please try to understand that it is the technology that makes the F-35 a generation ahead of anything else. It enables thinking far beyond present capabilities. Comparing it with the current state of affairs is futile, and ultimately, wrong.

Edited by Brokenedge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing my taxpayer cash is paying for this, I would hope that the whole package works as advertised, because there are no alternatives on the table.

I remain skeptical because I have seen many wonderful supposed all singing all dancing systems fall at the first hurdle. The Raptor looks right and does well. Sadly, the F-35 does not look right. Unless and until this dog hunts, I will maintain my stance. It's not a case of ramming anything down my throat, I'm old enough to make judgement on what I see.

Too many people in powerful places tell me this thing is the dogs danglies. People like this have been known to be wrong or downright misleading because it gives them more power or money, and that is what the arms manufacturers are all about.

Western airforces can only afford a few of these wonderful toys. If we ever meet a threat from the East, BVR will only work with what the airframe will carry on launch. Once you are out of bullets, a larger number of faster, more heavily armed and longer ranged opponents will likely ensure you don't get to reload. I would rather we had 200 Typhoons than a handful of F-35s that might or might not perform as 'advertised'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idle thought, but has anyone 'viffed' an F-35B?

Trevor

If was a tactic of last resort in the Harrier, so I don't see them using it. As any fighter pilot - the last thing they want to lose energy.

All this BVR is fine in theory, but in a combat situation, theory often goes out of the door. At some point, warplanes are going to get up close and personal with enemy a/c. Then lets see how all this high tech theory pans out.

Wait till it goes to Red Flag, against something a tad more agile.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unscathed-hostile-fire-green-flag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely BVR will best be used in an environment of total air superiority when the only other things that are flying are 'the enemy' and so visual i/d isn't required?

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BVR is the ideal engagement". Ask the passengers and crew of an Iranian A300 about that one......

...in 1988? It's just conceivable that technology may have advanced since then, seeing as new fathers in 1988 are grandfathers now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No F-35 was 'shot down' in the exercise.

Nor were any Buccaneers way back when. The defenders couldn't find them. Too fast, too low. Not at 10,000 feet. And the contest wasn't rigged in the Bucc's favour either.

CAS is just that....CLOSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"BVR is the ideal engagement". Ask the passengers and crew of an Iranian A300 about that one......

Thanks Steve, that is EXACTLY my point. Why on earth are you querying it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that's exactly what we decided we didn't need.

Besides, if McDonnell Douglas hadn't elected to modify and upgrade the Harrier through the AV-8B programme, it would have been obsolete by the mid-80s.

And there is absolutely nothing that the AV-8B can do better than the F-35B. Nothing.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×