F35 cancelled..by marines

[bentwaters81tfw]

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 unnecessary 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.

How very dare you!

It's obvious to us cash cows what this is all about, but let the pundits have their day.

[Alan P]

I feel like I'm having a 60-year flashback to Duncan Sandys white paper on manned combat aircraft.

[bentwaters81tfw]

He didn't necessarily choose the right aircraft to develop or can either. At least he had a wider choice.

[XV107]

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.

Have you seen the Syrian MEZ recently?

Even if only 50% of the SAM crews are capable of using what's available, if you're a planner working out airstrikes against targets within range of that stuff and you choose not to use F-22s when they're available, you're an idiot.

Sometimes, despite internet conspiracy theories, we use high end kit because it reduces the risk of our people being killed, not for PR purposes...

Edited June 24, 2015 by XV107

[rustywelder]

Have you seen the Syrian MEZ recently?

Even if only 50% of the SAM crews are capable of using what's available, if you're a planner working out airstrikes against targets within range of that stuff and you choose not to use F-22s when they're available, you're an idiot.

Sometimes, despite internet conspiracy theories, we use high end kit because it reduces the risk of our people being killed, not for PR purposes...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[-Neu-]

WTF?

Why would you possibly need to use F22s against ISIS?

The Assad Regime has a number of very capable air defence capabilities, including the SA-22 (96K6 Pantsir S-1). Nasty stuff. As XV pointed out, even at 50% capability, these systems will eat most aircraft alive. However that's only part of it.

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.

So I think there are two errors on this part. The first is the cost. I can't keep harping on this more: the F-35 is actually the most affordable aircraft on the market. By 2018, the platform will cost $30~$40 million dollars less a copy than the Eurofighter or the Rafale (which are about $120 million each). The F-35A right now costs $10~15 million dollars less (108 Million dollars). I could explain why in depth if you want, but it all has to do with production scale.

The second part is the sensor fusion capabilities When you're talking about a ground environment. the F-22 and F-35 basically general more Data and process it far better than anything available... That matters. It means the platform can cover more area, is superior at identifying targets, analyze the situation better, and do so more safely than any other aircraft.

Even if the F-35 was more expensive to operate, its still cheaper. In light of the threats and target area size, to use a F-16, you're going to need more than one aircraft to do the same work. Then you're going to need a EW asset like a Growler to suppress enemy air defences, and tanker gas because the F-16 and F/A-18 have short legs. So now, you're basically paying for 4 aircraft to do the job of one F-35. That's not a cost savings.

For everybody here who is skeptical of this aircraft. Please, please please watch this video in its entity. If you don't then you're just here to troll, because you're not listening to an expert voice explain his vantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0#t=318

And while he's talking, remember that the F-35's cost is at that or less than many other aircraft contemporaries. I think you'll start to see just how revolutionary these aircraft are.

Edited June 25, 2015 by -Neu-

[PhantomBigStu]

The Assad Regime has a number of very capable air defence capabilities, including the SA-22 (96K6 Pantsir S-1). Nasty stuff. As XV pointed out, even at 50% capability, these systems will eat most aircraft alive. However that's only part of it.

So I think there are two errors on this part. The first is the cost. I can't keep harping on this more: the F-35 is actually the most affordable aircraft on the market. By 2018, the platform will cost $30~$40 million dollars less a copy than the Eurofighter or the Rafale (which are about $120 million each). The F-35A right now costs $10~15 million dollars less (108 Million dollars). I could explain why in depth if you want, but it all has to do with production scale.

The second part is the sensor fusion capabilities When you're talking about a ground environment. the F-22 and F-35 basically general more Data and process it far better than anything available... That matters. It means the platform can cover more area, is superior at identifying targets, analyze the situation better, and do so more safely than any other aircraft.

Even if the F-35 was more expensive to operate, its still cheaper. In light of the threats and target area size, to use a F-16, you're going to need more than one aircraft to do the same work. Then you're going to need a EW asset like a Growler to suppress enemy air defences, and tanker gas because the F-16 and F/A-18 have short legs. So now, you're basically paying for 4 aircraft to do the job of one F-35. That's not a cost savings.

For everybody here who is skeptical of this aircraft. Please, please please watch this video in its entity. If you don't then you're just here to troll, because you're not listening to an expert voice explain his vantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0#t=318

And while he's talking, remember that the F-35's cost is at that or less than many other aircraft contemporaries. I think you'll start to see just how revolutionary these aircraft are.

thats the real damm problem and the thing I personally have against it, they trioed to squeeze the roles of 4/5 previously aircraft many of them much larger airframes into one platform, wit h the additional capability of next gen software and hardware thrown in and with stealth on top of that, plus with the added pressure of not costing that much more than the old stuff, should have been 2 or 3 distinct aircraft made from the specification not 3 highly different version of the same base, theres just too much capability squeezed into too small a packet

[Alan P]

So how is that any different from all other major defence developments? Ships, MBTs, submarines are all going the same way. Fewer units, lower operating costs, higher capabilities.

What century do you think we're actually in?

[PhantomBigStu]

I'm well aware of what century were in, and that its been that way for a long time, but my point is there comes a point where you just can't get anymore capability out of 1 aircraft, and thats the point the f-35 appears to be at this moment in time

[alex]

thats the real damm problem and the thing I personally have against it, they trioed to squeeze the roles of 4/5 previously aircraft many of them much larger airframes into one platform, wit h the additional capability of next gen software and hardware thrown in and with stealth on top of that, plus with the added pressure of not costing that much more than the old stuff, should have been 2 or 3 distinct aircraft made from the specification not 3 highly different version of the same base, theres just too much capability squeezed into too small a packet

No, that's exactly the point. Last century, you had to carry a lot of weapons, because they were mostly dumb (thus dictating the large platforms). You needed fighter escort, because the attacking airplane needed to carry a lot of those dumb bombs and were not able to defend themselves. You needed SEAD, because aircraft with a lot of ordnance are hard to hide on radar. With todays sensor fusion and internal PGM capabilities, you can put all that together into a single airframe. Look what the french did in Libya with the Rafale - recce, attack, fighter escort, air refuelling and some limited SEAD with a single airframe, air force and navy. F35 takes this to the next level by carrying the weapons inside. The aircraft may a bit expensive, but you save a lot by using a common base (training, maintenance, spare parts managements, upgrade developments...), and getting rid of many supporting aircrafts. After all, a Wild weasel is need to have if you're not stealth. If you can do without, you save again a whole fleet of planes - and the costs that go with it.

Alex

[PhantomBigStu]

No, that's exactly the point. Last century, you had to carry a lot of weapons, because they were mostly dumb (thus dictating the large platforms). You needed fighter escort, because the attacking airplane needed to carry a lot of those dumb bombs and were not able to defend themselves. You needed SEAD, because aircraft with a lot of ordnance are hard to hide on radar. With todays sensor fusion and internal PGM capabilities, you can put all that together into a single airframe. Look what the french did in Libya with the Rafale - recce, attack, fighter escort, air refuelling and some limited SEAD with a single airframe, air force and navy. F35 takes this to the next level by carrying the weapons inside. The aircraft may a bit expensive, but you save a lot by using a common base (training, maintenance, spare parts managements, upgrade developments...), and getting rid of many supporting aircrafts. After all, a Wild weasel is need to have if you're not stealth. If you can do without, you save again a whole fleet of planes - and the costs that go with it.

Alex

I have nothing against the principle, agree its far better to have as much roles in one airframe, but my point that seems to be being missed is, your tryign to but so much fancy electronics into what is quite small aircraft , its all well and good being able to blow up all the moons of jupiter simultaneously whilst being invisible, but not if the thing only works on a solitary tuesday in april and spents the rest of the year breaking down or spontaneously combusting

[Knight_Flyer]

It is still early days and I can't really think of a single aircraft project where it wasn't beset with problems from the beginning. The F-15 had problems and quite recently the F-22.

[bentwaters81tfw]

Something which has come to the fore, and I haven't yet had the chance to watch the video, is the cost per airframe has been touted as the cost of putting the beast into the air. Many people think cost per airframe means you can jump in and fly away.

What it really means is just the airframe. The engine is extra, the software is extra, and the total cost over it's lifetime is more than the opposition.

It's fine to say it's all singing, all dancing and you save a fortune on support aircraft, but when it only carries 2 bombs in clean configuration, and has shorter legs because carting all that extra junk means there is less room for fuel, you need more sorties or more aircraft to do the damage a 'legacy' jet does with a full weapon load.

It's smoke and mirrors, and I'll quote Stalin again. Quantity has a quality all it's own. 200 Flankers will do more damage to your prestige than 200 F-35s on a single mission basis because they outclass it in range, firepower and speed. When you have expended your limited ordnance and present that single hot exhaust to the world, whilst you get the hell out of Dodge, no amount of stealth or fancy electronics will help you. If you think a long range stand off weapon will make up for the shortcomings because you don't have to fly so far into contested territory, you may as well use a cruise missile.

If you need extended range, you still need tankers, and they still need protection, so your don't gain much.

[Slater]

I would think that the F-35A, without the "B"s lift fan and associated bits, would have greater range on a comparable mission.

[Giorgio N]

Ok, now I'm finally convinced: the F-35 is being judged according to concepts from 30 to 40 years ago !

On the need for high tech against potential enemies: wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia should have shown that the threat of SAMs is always present when bombing someone else's country. Only a while ago there were talks of attacks on Syria and Iran, do you think they don't have SAMs ? Stealth technologies reduce the threats from SAMs, I'd rather have this technology than not.

On the size of the airframe: the F-35 is not that small. This can be good or bad, in any case it's not much a problem for the electronics as today's systems are very small.

Range: the F-35A carries 18,000 Lbs of internal fuel ! How many aircrafts carry as much fuel ? Shorter legs compared to what ? To an F-16 with 7,000 Lbds of fuel ? The truth is that the F-35 is the longest ranged aircraft in its size cathegory ! I've read before of people crying for Gripens instead of F-35s, and now we worry about the range of the F-35 when the Gripen carries 35% of the F-35 fuel ?

Payload: a small payload can be carried internally but external pylons can be used when stealthiness is not needed. The aircraft still retains 18,000 Lbs of fuel in this configuration, giving much more range compared to every other comparable aircraft. Now if we want to compare the load of "conventional", non stealth aircrafts with the F-35, add the external load to this one. And don't forget that even with external loads, the F-35 still has those 18,000 Lbs of internal fuel ! Other types will need the usual couple of tanks

Numbers: 200 Su-27s is more than 50% than the total fielded by the Russian Air Force today. 200 F-35s is going to be less than 20% than the total the US forces intend to buy. Looks like things have changed a bit in the last few years

And don't forget that the radius figures shown for the Su-27 are generally those for clean aircrafts. The combat radius with missiles is well lower. Speaking of radius, if this is such an important aspect, why didn't people fear the Tu-128 back in the days ? In any case the Su-27s may have to deal with F-22s used as escorts, not an easy prey. Not to mention that the F-35 pilots will have the huge advantage of knowing much more about the position of their adversaries compared to the latter.

Of course not all F-35 users will have F-22s to act as escorts but then those other users are not likely to have to deal with 200 Su-27s on their own.

Speaking of users, has anyone noticed that the air force with the biggest experience of all in jet fighter combat has chosen the F-35 ?

[Nigel Foster60]

Hi Giorgio,

I admire your analytical and factual defence of the F35, there is always two sides to a story.

That said it is a high tech aircraft with a great potential to suffer a significant amount of downtime.

It has taken decades to develop and still does not perform as the original specification said it would, in all versions, let alone it is too expensive for many nations, not least the UK.

In the military, simple sometimes works best. However there generally needs to be a range of capabilities. What really appears to be missing here is an affordable, reliable, mature platform, that can in most cases deliver the goods.

What really, really worries me is that an aircraft which on a good day can provide 2 or 3 times the capability of it predecessors but has been ordered in say a quarter of the numbers, if not less, cannot be in four places at once.

Nigel

[rbeach84]

Ah will wait and see. Proof is in the puddin'... Having been in the situation of working (aka "flying") two different generations of a/c of same mission, I can say state of the art electrons make a definite difference. One point is obvious to me: no one is talking about what real investment in the 'operational support infrastructure' will cost or even if it will be adequately addressed. If the needed resources (included trained personnel) are not fully covered, then it won't matter if the birds are grounded for parts or maintenance. I suspect there will be very few aspects of the F-35 that can tolerate much degradation. And I used to think my H-2 was a miracle of parts flying in close formation... this thing will be a whole different universe!

R/ Robert

[bentwaters81tfw]

Whilst we are chewing and digesting the fat, ponder on this:

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Taken from this:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

This is the reason we have programmes like the F-35.

More to do with corporate gain and political influence within the Military.

One tells the other we can do this, so the other tells the PTB 'we need this before the enemy has it'

By the time we get it, it's past it's sell by date, because technology is evolving faster than development and production.

[rbeach84]

<<extra snipped>>

By the time we get it, it's past it's sell by date, because technology is evolving faster than development and production.

So it has always been & logically must always be... if something is state-of-the-art today and someone decides to implement it, well, SotA isn't going to stop progressing politely while the thing is built... corollary is of course, that SotA can *never* be 'on the street' at the moment it is 'discovered'. It is always a game of 'catch-up'.

The real question is who fields it first, and is it viable?

R/ Robert

[Giorgio N]

Nigel, I'm not defending the F-35 for the sake of it, simply I can see the advantages of what this offers over the types fielded in the past while not being scared by the supposed shortcomings.

I'm not scared by the technology used for a number of reasons:

- a lot of this technology has evolved from well proven systems used everyday on military and commercial aircrafts. This means that such technology is much less likely to go wrong than many think

- electronics may take time to develop but once it's sorted the reliability of electronic systems is very high.

- US designs have always placed the improvement of reliability as a target. Today's aircrafts are much more reliable than the simpler types of previous decades, the F-35 is being designed with this in mind

For the reasons above, it's expected that once the F-35 is in service, its availability will be much higher not only than what people think, but also than the older types it will replace.

Regarding the time it's taking to enter service, there's one aspect to keep in mind: the development program is sorting out bugs that in previous days were not considered bugs at all ! A lot of aircrafts from the past that we all know and love never met the requirements and some entered service when they were totally unfit for this. The Hunter suffered from engine surge problems for years until the F.6 version entered service. The F-106 used a fire control system that actually never worked as expected. The A version Tomcats suffered from engine problems until they were retired. Early F-104s for a while had no weapon available as neither the Vulcan nor the Sidewinder could be used. The radar troubles of the Tornado F.3 are well known here. The F-18A required the USN to lower the specifications on range and landing speed as neither could be achieved. Fast forward a few years and the F-18E was accepted even if the type could not meet the range specifications. And I could go on for a couple of pages with similar examples.

Today it would not be possible to let an aircraft enter service with the vices some aircrafts from the past had, the development and test phase is much more demanding. Sure, the F-35 is a sophisticated type and the B variant more so than the others and it's taking time to sort everything but this is nothing uncommon.

Cost and numbers: the problem with numbers is that it doesn't matter how many aircrafts are available, today Western countries can't afford to have more than a certain number of personnel and bases. Even if the RAF could buy 5 times the number of aircrafts by choosing a different type, they could not afford having the pilots and support personnel required for these aircrafts. In today's Western world, equipment is cheap compared to manpower, in the Military as in industry. Once a certain limit on personnel is set, it makes sense to buy the equipment that can give the best performance to compensate for the lower numbers.

Want an affordable reliable and mature platform? There's plenty on the market, like the F-16s and the Super Hornets. Problem is that these are not as advanced as the F-35. What would people say if the RAF bought the F-16 ? How many would complain that they chose a 1970's design?

By the time we get it, it's past it's sell by date, because technology is evolving faster than development and production.

It does not matter if science has advanced by the time something is in production, what matters is that nothing else is available that can best the most advanced technology currently in production, even if this technology is based on scientific knowledge from 20 years before. If by the time a new aircraft flies something more advanced has been discovered, this something still has a lot of time before becoming ready for production.

By the time the Spitfire flew the jet engine was already being developed and the first jet powered aircraft had already flown by the time WW2 started in Europe. Yet nobody claims that by BoB the Spitfire was obsolete.

[Alan P]

In any aerospace project that is likely to take more than ten years to develop, it is necessary to set a year for "technology freeze" - the point at which technology will not be further developed for the system. For most projects, this tends to be about five years before the projected every into service. This is to allow the applied technology to be refined, debugged, tried and tested during developmental testing, and ensures a modern product that is not hampered by continued integration of new technologies after the freeze.

The F-35 is slightly different in this respect, as it not only has a freeze date of just two years, (as much of the technology is not mature) but is specifically designed to be able to incorporate future tech as part of the integrated electronic architecture.

This is similar to the Boeing 787 and Zumwalt-class destroyer, being similarly designed from new technologies with an eye on future development.

This is a very exciting time for applied technology. Of course it's expensive, and of course it well take time to evaluate, integrate and test in the real world. The constant, ill-informed griping about this project is quite disheartening in the general short-sighted nature it takes. Not so much Luddite as completely missing the whole picture of what a truly modern, integrated weapon system represents.

[Nigel Foster60]

Hi Giorgio,

I am not totally at odds with your points of view. They are fair and credible points. However many of the situations we have seen during the last 30 years or so do

not require that level of technology. Giving pilots the best for the most part is a creditable policy. There are lots of operational scenario's that a late mark Hawk would give the pilot a good chance of completing the mission, in some ways because of the mature technology possibly in some situations a better one.

I think the best would be a more balanced force mix. We have all heard of situations were systems have taken the whole fleet of a particular aircraft out of the air.

Aircraft overloaded with leading edge technology are more likely to fall into this category.

Nigel

[bentwaters81tfw]

I will give you an analogy from my late brother. He worked in the motor trade before computers took over.
When he was asked for advice on the best car to buy, his comment was 'buy a Ford'. Not because they were the best car on the road - far from it!

His logic was 'there is less to go wrong, you can get parts anywhere, and they are dead easy to work on because they are accessible and well laid out, and anybody can work on them.'

He drove Fords, because the down time was far less than anything else.

In a war, these are the qualities you need. Rather like an AK-47. Cheap, simple, plentiful, standard ammo, and when you run out, turn it round and use it like a club.

[Procopius]

That's a fine argument, as long as you don't mind losing a large number of highly-trained aircrew against opponents in better machines. The Hurricane was more rugged and reliable than the 109E/F, but the Germans swept them from the skies over Malta.

[bentwaters81tfw]

That's a fine argument, as long as you don't mind losing a large number of highly-trained aircrew against opponents in better machines. The Hurricane was more rugged and reliable than the 109E/F, but the Germans swept them from the skies over Malta.

That was more down to tactics and combat experience. Look what we went on to do with 3 Gladiators!