What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Mr Whippy said:
The Mig29 models that most people were buying in the 90's probably out-do the F35 on climb rate, sustained turn, initial turn, and acceleration.
When the F35 is loaded up, probably for climb, sustained and acceleration. Not sure about instantaneous turn. It would be really interesting to compare the F35 with Mig29, F16, F18 fuelled up for equivalent range, and with same weapons loadMr Whippy said:
A Mig29 with enhanced kit will probably out-class the F35 in every metric except integrated systems and 'stealth' which may be irrelevant in any given engagement any way.
Even if integrated systems and stealth were irrelevant (which I don't neccesarily think they are); how about better range, higher weapons load, higher reliability, easier to fly?Has anyone here got the knowledge to critique this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.ht...
It's a comparison of the F35 vs Su35S and it seems pretty damning.
It's a comparison of the F35 vs Su35S and it seems pretty damning.
Mr Will said:
Has anyone here got the knowledge to critique this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.ht...
It's a comparison of the F35 vs Su35S and it seems pretty damning.
The main crux of the article seems to be about the weapon systems that the two would typically deploy. To remain stealth the f35 only carries amraam in internal bays. The Su35 doesn't worry about its radar signature so can load up with a mix of stores which give it greater kill range, radar seakers, heat seakers jamming pods and extra fuel. It's a comparison of the F35 vs Su35S and it seems pretty damning.
Mr Will said:
Has anyone here got the knowledge to critique this: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.ht...
It's a comparison of the F35 vs Su35S and it seems pretty damning.
Well, its written by a journalist with a well known anti-JSF slant....It's a comparison of the F35 vs Su35S and it seems pretty damning.
Future potential capabilities of the SU-35S are regarded as a given, whilst current development problems of the F35 are considered insurmountable.
Detectability scenarios are skewed - a "multiship engagement" flight of F35s will cover a variety of angles - what does this formation look like where they can detect from multiple angles from 100+ miles away? And how detectable is the "much larger" SU35S antennae?
Looking through the colour coding, its a joke. How do you scope F35 red and SU35S green for altitude on entry when both are 60k ft aircraft? How do you score "Mach on Entry" F35 red and SU35S green when the SU35S has a similar mach number when carrying the weapon load referred to in the assessment? (and then uses these inaccurate comparisons to influence the "missile range" assessment....
IanMorewood said:
If a shooting match with a well equipped enemy started its sub launched cruise missile strikes first to kill known AA infra structure, then stealth aircraft to strike airfields, power stations and centres of government etc. After that the chances of you meeting a Mig31 or similar should be significantly reduced as he would have to be actively scanning for you thus giving his position away so you can stay away and task interceptors at him.
Just like that.It reminds me of Alan Partridge paraphrasing about football tactics "pass the ball to him, then score a goal"
In practice, missiles miss, enemies are not where you think, weather impacts missions, aircraft don't all fly at their max speed, at their altitude ceiling, and at their full range, and become entirely invisible because they are stealth.
Everything is horrible shades of grey. Attrition WILL occur between forces, and you can't just list a string of goals and achieve them in a symmetric war.
Symmetric fights are about finding the weaknesses and exposing them, so it might be a specific bridge, power line, runway, CCC bunker, depot. Who knows. But the chances are the enemy will know and will put appropriately large amounts of AAA and CAP's around them.
An F35 just pushes at the potential benefits stealth can bring, pushes at the potential benefits integrated electronics can bring, etc etc. Fielding a load of F16, A10, F18 and F15 with modernised systems would probably be just as good as a monotone attack with all F35s.
But the point I made was, do these 'pushes' all combine enough to make it better in every way than a last gen specialist aircraft? Or an avionics/engines upgraded version of a last gen specialist?
By being an everything aircraft it's ability to be significantly better than a last gen updated specialist is gonna be very hard work!
I simply don't think the F35 will be much use except in asymmetric tit for tat conflicts where it's lack of specialisms won't be exposed.
Now assuming the USA wins the global economic war and we're all subservient nations, and no other large country will field significant forces against you, then a load of F35 that do everything 'ok' in asymmetric fights will be pretty good I suppose.
Dave
I am firmly of the view that the F35 is a waste of time. What we should have done is bought navalised, thrust vectoring equipped Typhoons. Granted not very stealthy, but at least it has 2 donkeys, can dogfight with the best (and win) and can carry pretty much most of the desirable air to ground stuff.
Given the intended service life of the F35 I don't think there is any doubt that it will not be "stealthy" by the end - indeed I doubt if it will be stealthy within 5 years given the advances in sensor and radar technologies. Given all the performance compromises that had to be accepted just to go with the F35, to have it's core raison d'être obsolete within a short period is just unacceptable.
Typhoon would at least have let us protect a few jobs. All F35 gives us is a lift fan (so that RR sorted, even though the Americans bunked out of the alternate engine program) and some bits of fuselage.
Given the intended service life of the F35 I don't think there is any doubt that it will not be "stealthy" by the end - indeed I doubt if it will be stealthy within 5 years given the advances in sensor and radar technologies. Given all the performance compromises that had to be accepted just to go with the F35, to have it's core raison d'être obsolete within a short period is just unacceptable.
Typhoon would at least have let us protect a few jobs. All F35 gives us is a lift fan (so that RR sorted, even though the Americans bunked out of the alternate engine program) and some bits of fuselage.
F18E Super Hornets from the start. Bought directly off the shelf. Three times as many airframes for the same price. It would have meant closely monitoring BAE, so they couldn't do the 'we can't do cat and traps' malarkey. The Australians have a desire for F35, but have gone for Super Hornets in the medium term.
F18E/F & G or Rafale M would have been much better choices - particularly with the sensor suite upgrades being talked about for the S. Hornet.
A navalised Typhoon would most likely have been a pipe dream of additional capabiliies and cost.
The OTS solution would have been cheaper and quicker.
A navalised Typhoon would most likely have been a pipe dream of additional capabiliies and cost.
The OTS solution would have been cheaper and quicker.
andymadmak said:
I am firmly of the view that the F35 is a waste of time. What we should have done is bought navalised, thrust vectoring equipped Typhoons.
Arh yes, an aircraft that does not actually exist and would involve a great deal of re-engineering.If you had said F18, I may have had some sympathy.
Mr Whippy said:
Just like that.
It reminds me of Alan Partridge paraphrasing about football tactics "pass the ball to him, then score a goal"
In practice, missiles miss, enemies are not where you think, weather impacts missions, aircraft don't all fly at their max speed, at their altitude ceiling, and at their full range, and become entirely invisible because they are stealth......
I understand all that and that is why we would only fight that kind of a war as part of a coalition as we have pretty much every time in the past thirty years.It reminds me of Alan Partridge paraphrasing about football tactics "pass the ball to him, then score a goal"
In practice, missiles miss, enemies are not where you think, weather impacts missions, aircraft don't all fly at their max speed, at their altitude ceiling, and at their full range, and become entirely invisible because they are stealth......
The pattern is as I described from desert storm onwards the way we have gone to war and while you loose the odd battle it has proven hugely successful. Against another superpower??? Let's not go there as a thermo nuclear doomsday isn't in anyone's interests.
Halmyre said:
I'd like to know if there's any commonality between those members who complain about the loss of our manufacturing and engineering skills and capabilities and those members who advocate buying foreign kit.
We already buy plenty of foreign kit as it is (C-130J, C-17, E-3D, RC-135W) so it really wouldn't have made much odds if we had gone F-18 Superbug or Rafale M, or we could have gone Sea Gripen back then, when BAe still had part ownership of Saab, which would have provided that self industry option, and probably a decent bit of kit to fly off the carriers.I have an awful feeling the F-35B will be the most expensive defence white elephant of the last half century
doogz said:
andy97 said:
Arh yes, an aircraft that does not actually exist and would involve a great deal of re-engineering.
If you had said F18, I may have had some sympathy.
Would probably be cheaper and more capable than an F-35B though.If you had said F18, I may have had some sympathy.
hidetheelephants said:
doogz said:
I do.
But I won't. Sorry.
'I know something you don't, if I told you I'd have to kill you'? When it's about 15+ year old paper aircraft that never existed except in glossy brochures, that's a bit silly.But I won't. Sorry.
Halmyre said:
I'd like to know if there's any commonality between those members who complain about the loss of our manufacturing and engineering skills and capabilities and those members who advocate buying foreign kit.
It's not a binary issue. What's best for UK manufacturing and engineering skills isn't neccesary the best capability / affordability balance, and therefore the best for our armed forces.If we want to maintain UK capability in manufacture and engineering in military equipment, then we need our government to balance it's desire for capability against the ability to export to keep the costs affordable; and we need to avoid being seduced by future options where the risks and costs are not totally understood compared with the real, understandable problems we're facing today.
aeropilot said:
I have an awful feeling the F-35B will be the most expensive defence white elephant of the last half century
I think it's got a lot of competition. I saw a great graph a few years back of MoD procurement projects plotted with cost on one axis and time on the other, where 0,0 was on time and on budget. Remarkably there were a few that were negative on both axes, but some were a bit hard to see as the scales had to extend so far in the +ve to fit MRA4 and Astute in.RizzoTheRat said:
aeropilot said:
I have an awful feeling the F-35B will be the most expensive defence white elephant of the last half century
I think it's got a lot of competition. I saw a great graph a few years back of MoD procurement projects plotted with cost on one axis and time on the other, where 0,0 was on time and on budget. Remarkably there were a few that were negative on both axes, but some were a bit hard to see as the scales had to extend so far in the +ve to fit MRA4 and Astute in.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff