What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Mave said:
Z06George said:
shouldn't we cut our very expensive loses and just wait for a 6th gen aircraft or even a 5.5 gen? I mean this has taken long enough, I'm sure they're already designing the JSF replacement.
Do you really think a 6th generation aircraft will be lower risk than a 5th gen? Northop are studying something that may appear in 20 years, so call it 30; should we "just" wait until 2045 to have aircraft on our carriers?Z06George said:
Lower risk than a 5th gen aircraft? Debatable and we won't know for sure until they start to appear. However the JSF, yes I think so. All planes have their teething problems and a few of them have been mentioned on this thread, the F-14 being one if I remember correctly. It just seems to be having more problems than any plane I've read on.
IMHO the F35 has got a LOT more publicity than any other plane because the US is buying so many of them, replacing so many types, at a time of economic constraint. As a result, JPO is being more rigorous in the IOC programme than anything I've seen before, and pushing to keep to spec for far longer before letting go. Take a look at the original spec versus delivered capability of buccaneer, nimrod, tornado and typhoon; then look at the cost and timescale overruns of those programmes and compare them with F35.Mave said:
telecat said:
It's overall performance is No better than the planes it is designed to replace.
So how does it compare to the f16, f18, a10 and harrier in max speed, acceleration, sustained turn rate and range with a full weapons load? telecat said:
How old is your info? As far as I am aware it will no longer fill the "role" of the A10 in the USAF replacing only the F-16.
Well, the a-10 is being retired, so part of the mission the F35 will need to pick up is CAS. Unless the A10 now isn't being retired? I know there was some lobbying going on by the us army last autumn?Mave said:
Well, the a-10 is being retired, so part of the mission the F35 will need to pick up is CAS. Unless the A10 now isn't being retired? I know there was some lobbying going on by the us army last autumn?
The US air force keep trying to retire the A10 but the army keeps saying they'll buy them and operate them if they do. The generals hate the idea of the army having fixed-wing aircraft even more than they hate the A10, so it stays in service.The airframes are getting old and tired though, so this can't go on for ever. In my amateur opinion there is a space for a dedicate COIN* aircraft in the US inventory. Something cheap, low and slow that can operate from forward fields in close cooperation with ground troops rather than just lobbing bombs from on high.
* COunter-INsurgency (for the benefit of Eric)
The A-10 has just been fully updated and had new wings fitted. The Air Forces's decision to cut it is solely down to money. Sequestration has had a huge impact on funding and they want to point the cash in the direction of the F-35. Congress has blocked it from happening for the moment, but there's going to be lots of headbutting in the future
Mr Will said:
In my amateur opinion there is a space for a dedicate COIN* aircraft in the US inventory. Something cheap, low and slow that can operate from forward fields in close cooperation with ground troops rather than just lobbing bombs from on high.
+1Maybe a third attempt to introduce the turbo Mustang, that would be fun.
telecat said:
Basically aside from "low observability" (downgraded from uktra low), only the Harrier carries less and the advantages of a "true" V/STOL aircraft probably outweigh the benefits
From open source data, f35- 8100kg payload, f16- 7700kg and f18- 6200kg.So the F35 carries more, further.
Mave said:
Mojocvh said:
Be careful what you wish for....
Ah, now you're back, can you explain why the laws of physics make it easier for radar to detect aircraft from the side or rear? And how a more powerful engine is inherently more stressed than a less powerful but smaller one? Mojocvh said:
I'm not going to explain something that you could find out for yourself, I have certainly given you enough pointers, if you can't be bothered then that's up to you.
It doesn't matter whether you are doing a coarse assessment of edge diffraction or surface discontinuities, or explicity solving maxwell equations, the physics knows nothing about where the front, sides, or rear of the aircraft are. Similarly doppler doesn't care whether an aircraft is coming or going.So why do you think saying "have you heard of the doppler effect" gives me enough pointers to explain which bits of maxwell's equations you think are wrong?
Mave said:
telecat said:
Basically aside from "low observability" (downgraded from uktra low), only the Harrier carries less and the advantages of a "true" V/STOL aircraft probably outweigh the benefits
From open source data, f35- 8100kg payload, f16- 7700kg and f18- 6200kg.So the F35 carries more, further.
I'll agree that this is probably the most publicly viewed military aircraft build, at least that I know of. As a result it's easier to be critical of the many faults it has especially as the successes it has aren't as widely reported. If it turns out to be the epic can do anything jet then I'll happily admit I was wrong. Until then I stand by my opinion that we should have gone down the Superhornet/Advanced Superhornet route.
As for Replacing the A-10 I think it'll be like the A-1 where there were quite a few attempts at a replacement before something substantial comes along. I know they'll never directly replace the A-10 with JSF.
Z06George said:
As for Replacing the A-10 I think it'll be like the A-1 where there were quite a few attempts at a replacement before something substantial comes along. I know they'll never directly replace the A-10 with JSF.
I suspect the A-10 in terms of its original capability won't be replaced unless the threat it was designed for reappears. In every recent conflict, the A-10 has ended up overlapping with F16, F15, harrier, B1B, B52...Mave said:
Z06George said:
As for Replacing the A-10 I think it'll be like the A-1 where there were quite a few attempts at a replacement before something substantial comes along. I know they'll never directly replace the A-10 with JSF.
I suspect the A-10 in terms of its original capability won't be replaced unless the threat it was designed for reappears. In every recent conflict, the A-10 has ended up overlapping with F16, F15, harrier, B1B, B52...Mave said:
Mojocvh said:
I'm not going to explain something that you could find out for yourself, I have certainly given you enough pointers, if you can't be bothered then that's up to you.
It doesn't matter whether you are doing a coarse assessment of edge diffraction or surface discontinuities, or explicity solving maxwell equations, the physics knows nothing about where the front, sides, or rear of the aircraft are. Similarly doppler doesn't care whether an aircraft is coming or going.So why do you think saying "have you heard of the doppler effect" gives me enough pointers to explain which bits of maxwell's equations you think are wrong?
[url]
https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.radartut...
Hopefully the link will work
Edited by Mojocvh on Friday 23 January 16:16
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
Put simply, we can't afford that any more.Mojocvh said:
Once again you are displaying your ignorance.
Come on, we all know you were trying to blag it playing Mr "I'm so smart and you're so stupid".That's why your explanation of your alternative behaviour of physics is limited to "I've already given you a clue" and "you're ignorant" when you've provided no, zero, nada, nil, zilch actual content.
Esseesse said:
Haven't read the thread, but we should invest money developing our own planes. Harrier has been old for as long as I can remember (literally), we could have spent the last few decades developing our own STOVL (or not) aircraft. But then that would require something other than short-term thinking.
What other spec would you place on this aircraft other than STOVL? Money, risk and development time goes up increasingly quickly with increasing capability. There's a sweet spot which is useful additional capability versus cost and risk, with obsolescence chucked into the pot for added complexity... Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff