What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
As the thread title says... What would the British Government buy if, for whatever reason, the USA decided to scrap the F35 project? (Assume for the sake of argument that we keep both new carriers and we want something to fly off them)
Cap in hand to the French for Rafales?
Loadsa dosh to BAE for some Navalised Typhoons?
Anything Russian we could look at?
Or, is it the case that with the carriers design now locked into STOVL mode we would have to build some more Harriers?
Could we develope the Harrier further in a short time frame? Supersonic Harrier?
Cap in hand to the French for Rafales?
Loadsa dosh to BAE for some Navalised Typhoons?
Anything Russian we could look at?
Or, is it the case that with the carriers design now locked into STOVL mode we would have to build some more Harriers?
Could we develope the Harrier further in a short time frame? Supersonic Harrier?
davepoth said:
I'm still not convinced that there's really any use for stealth on a strike aircraft in the drone/cruise missile age.
I agree 100% with you on this. AFter first day/ first strike in just about any conflict it's hard to see the merits of stealth. Looking forward 15 years, who's to say that advances in radar technology wouldn't render stealth obsolete anyway? Drone and cruise missles are perfectly capable of hitting fixed targets, and some targets of opportunity. The bit where the pink cargo is a necessity would surely be air defense fighter type activity and close air support of ground troops? In both cases stealth is as useful as a chocolate teapot. What is really required is agility, weapons carrying capability and survivability. A modernised, supersonic Harrier FRS2 would have addressed the fleet air defense requirements (some Argie skyhawks got away because the harriers were not fast enough to catch them) and a similarly updated GR9, backed up by an expanded fleet of Apaches could have dealt with the close air support. Typhoon could also be augmented with thrust vectoring and better radars for the RAF.
Whats the point of having a stealthy fleet defense fighter when the 300meter long metal airfield is the most obvious target on the block!
doogz said:
The frigates, destroyers, and submarines should be doing a pretty good job of protecting the 300m long metal airfield.
When was the last time we lost an aicraft?
When was the last time we lost a carrier?
Tada.
well..... Atlantic Conveyor - OK, I know it wasn't a proper grey aircraft carrier, but to all intents and purposes it could have been.. There but for the grace of god etc etc.. When was the last time we lost an aicraft?
When was the last time we lost a carrier?
Tada.
Max_Torque said:
Surely, in terms of Air-Air combat, which is highly likely to be over horizon / missile based these days, being invisible to your enemies weapons systems is just about the biggest advantage possible?
Yes, in theory. Provided you really are invisible for as long as you are within your weapons range (so that you can launch an attack and leave without being seen). However, I do believe that advances in radar, combined with other sensor technologies and the direct linking of multiple sources of data will probably render the present approaches to stealth all but obsolete within 10 years and certainly within the planned service lifetimes of the airframes. We already know that maintaining stealth capabilities in service is hard to do. This being the case, it makes more sense to look at the practical capabilities of the aircraft - ability to carry large amounts of weapons, turning/fighting capability, ability to deliver the payload accurately, withstand battle damage, servicability and uptime, and so on and so forth. These are the elements that should be foremost in the minds of aircraft designers in my honest opinion. Instead all these elements are being compromised to some degree or another in the quest for stealth. Lets face it, as others on here have pointed out, the ships are better able to defend themselves and their neighbors these days -a T45 Destroyer is a good example of this. If long range stealth attacks are denied, then you end up in a close in dog fight. Under those circumstances what would you rather be in, a very manoueverable jet with good weapons payload like a Typhoon/ updated Harrier or the less chuckable F35 with its limited weapons load?
doogz said:
An F35 is not less 'chuckable' nor does it have a smaller useful payload than a Harrier. Obviously, we don't know what an 'updated Harrier' would comprise, but it's unlikely to be a more formidable aircraft than the F35.
The stuff I have read suggests that the F35 is only really stealthy when it carries all it's weapons payload internally. Under those circumstances doesn't it carry less than a Typhoon or Harrier? (genuine question)If it has to be in non stealthy mode (external stores)to match the others carrying capacity, then what's the point of stealth at all?
I have also read that the F35 has lower G limits than the T and H, and suffers from high speed handling problems. (Transonic roll off?)
Of course, this is only what I have read, and it may be nonsense. Happy to defer to one with greater knowledge
Edited by andymadmak on Tuesday 19th March 14:12
Max_Torque said:
Chances are, the US for example, has a significant "anti-stealth" capability, which they certainly aren't going to crow about. They have been developing stealth for 40 years now, and again chances are, when doing detail design to achieve stealthyness (made up word?) you also learn a lot about how to defeat it!. But, Who exactly are we going to fight single handed that has this anti-stealth technology in the next 10,20,30 or even 40 years? When you consider that a basic, cheap, shoulder launched missile system (say £10k a pop) can take down a multi-billion dollar aircraft (that we can afford to build many of) surely stealth is a high priority. Yes, having space for a couple more missiles is good, but not at the expense of being shot down. With a proper stealth aircraft i'll just come back and get you on the next trip........ ;-)
If by twiddling the nobs on your radar set you can find a band that makes stealthy stuff visible then you've pretty much wasted your money on stealth. Fighting the Taliban and such like doesn't need full on stealth, and to avoid the hazards or new shoulder launched stuff we just need to pay careful attention to IR signatures and such like. Failing that, bomb from height. Failing that, use A10s (or the modern updated version)and build in survivability. Heck, even use Apaches... How many have we lost so far in the big sand pit? Fact is we are not losing aircraft to these bods during asymetric warfare to any significant degree, so we don't need stealth to the degree in which we have it (and have compromised our aircraft designs to accomodate it)to fight them.
As for who else we might fight that COULD have the bucks and technology to detect a super stealthy aircraft then I come back to my original point that if they can overcome stealth then there is no use for stealth if it compromises other functions/capabilities.
So the answer to the original question would appear to be that we cannot buy anything! Or should that be, we cannot buy anything without either huge additional expense to convert the carriers to CATOBAR ( then we could use F18s ) or the massive delay and expense of trying to build a new Harrier with upgraded capablities?
Weight still a problem for the F35 it appears - computer says NO! 
...
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry...
... http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry...
head of F35 program at LM said:
"Somewhere along the way, we made an error in our parametric weight models," Burbage said.
"Turned out we were predicting the things that we knew about pretty well, the structural parts were pretty close, the small detail parts were pretty close. What wasn't predicted well by the model was stealth and internal weapons bays because the airplane that had those capabilities weren't part of the database."
When is a program late.......? Not at all if you start again and says it's a new pne... "Turned out we were predicting the things that we knew about pretty well, the structural parts were pretty close, the small detail parts were pretty close. What wasn't predicted well by the model was stealth and internal weapons bays because the airplane that had those capabilities weren't part of the database."
head of F35 program at LM said:
Asked how far behind schedule the program was, Burbage said the answer depended on what metric is used, Defense News said. Citing program restructuring in 2010, he said, "I would argue the program post-2010 is not the program pre-2010, modified slightly. It's really a new program."
If we went CATOBAR on the carriers then there is a world of choice out there. But as I understand it, to retrofit the ships costs £2 billion because they have no steam generation capacity on board. But do we really have to use steam? I know people are still unsure about getting the electric catapault thingy to work - and fitting the extra power generation they require is a job in itself.. but couldn't we just use rocket powered catapaults? Or even rocket assisters on the planes to get them off the deck? I can't imagine stringing some arrestor cables across the deck for the landing would be all that hard a task either.... Surely the deck is already tough enough to take landings of any sort, so why the £2 billion?
Roberty said:
andymadmak said:
If we went CATOBAR on the carriers then there is a world of choice out there.
World of choice???Sea Gripen
F/A 18 or the new super duper version I believe is currently being prepped for the US Navy
Rafale M
erm...... Ok, maybe you're right, not a world of choice. But if we don't go CATOBAR in some way and F35 does die, then we really are Donald Ducked!
Look! It's selling in biiiiiig numbers now.. The program is rescued.. the future is assured!
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8226/Can_Foreign_...
Am I alone in thinking that boasting about selling 6 planes to Norway and less than 20 to Israel smacks a little of desperation?
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/8226/Can_Foreign_...
Am I alone in thinking that boasting about selling 6 planes to Norway and less than 20 to Israel smacks a little of desperation?
It goes up
It comes down
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-loc...
Is this really progress? Can it do it with any kind of load on board?
It comes down
http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-loc...
Is this really progress? Can it do it with any kind of load on board?
Are we absolutely sure we can't have Sea Typhoons?
http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail...
No catapult required!
http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail...
No catapult required!
article on Eurofighter site said:
The most important element of the navalised Typhoon is that its exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio allows the aircraft to take off from a carrier without using a catapult but with a simple and much cheaper “ski-jump”. Detailed simulations have shown that the aircraft will be able to take off and land in this way with a full weapon and fuel load – providing a truly potent and flexible naval aviation capability.
The basic design of Typhoon helps to minimise the modifications needed to allow a Typhoon to conduct naval operations from a carrier. The aircraft’s structure is exceptionally strong, having been designed from the outset for the high dynamic loads associated with extreme air combat manoeuvring. The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, as well as updates the EJ200 engines.
To reduce the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads the study envisages the introduction of a thrust-vectored variant of the Eurojet EJ200 engine. Thrust vectoring (Engines with TVN have already undergone factory testing in the Eurojet facility) could be fully integrated into Typhoon’s advanced Flight Control System (FCS), allowing the pilot to focus on flying the approach path while the FCS manages the engine nozzle position.
The basic design of Typhoon helps to minimise the modifications needed to allow a Typhoon to conduct naval operations from a carrier. The aircraft’s structure is exceptionally strong, having been designed from the outset for the high dynamic loads associated with extreme air combat manoeuvring. The modifications required are limited and include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and localised strengthening on some fuselage sections near the landing gear, as well as updates the EJ200 engines.
To reduce the aircraft’s approach speed and the resulting landing loads the study envisages the introduction of a thrust-vectored variant of the Eurojet EJ200 engine. Thrust vectoring (Engines with TVN have already undergone factory testing in the Eurojet facility) could be fully integrated into Typhoon’s advanced Flight Control System (FCS), allowing the pilot to focus on flying the approach path while the FCS manages the engine nozzle position.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/training-for-joint...
Looks like we are actually keeping the F35 after all.
The Saab Gripen display I saw recently suggested that that could have been a very useful alternative (had we gone CAT + Trap for the QE carriers)
Looks like we are actually keeping the F35 after all.
The Saab Gripen display I saw recently suggested that that could have been a very useful alternative (had we gone CAT + Trap for the QE carriers)
Looks like the project is once again in doubt:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23932826
And even the Yanks are getting cold feet:
http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-f35-stealth-bomber-963/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23932826
And even the Yanks are getting cold feet:
http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-f35-stealth-bomber-963/
aeropilot said:
But there's a point where the graph lines of quantity vs. quality cross, and we're going to be very close to that now, and probably have crossed it by the time the remaining Tonkas are replaced by the handfull of Dave-B's.
I do wonder about that. Its all very well having these wonder jets, but if an enemy had very large numbers of "reasonably capable" jets which they sent over en masse then the few wonder jets we have would be over run and we'd be toast!Got to be better to have a small number of very capable units designed for specific tasks where those capabilities were paramount (long range bombing for example) and then a very large number of simpler, cheaper but capable jets for stuff like air defence?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff