What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
aeropilot said:
Just doesn't make sense for them to have their own fixed wing FJ aviation. Helo's and V-22 is all they really need.
For the same reason the British Army AC own Apache. Close air support needs short CoC and joined up training. That said, the Chinook force proves it's really not that complicated, and ultimately the issue today is entirely political.Could you make the same argument for both the USMC and the RM being part of their respective Army's? Probably. You'd possibly lose your teeth in the process...
People don't usually join army or airforces and then expect to spend a lot of time on ships at sea, if they wanted to do that, they'd have joined the navy.
A guy I know, his Grandson is just about to embark on Queen Liz with 617 Sqn, which he's not hugely estatic about, for that the reason that if he'd wanted to go to sea he'd have joined the bloody Navy not the RAF.
hidetheelephants said:
RM are part of the navy, why would they want anything to do with the pongos?
As they've had to forcibly remind themselves (with a new uniform!) after 20 years of acting like an army unit...aeropilot said:
CAS from helo gunships like USMC Bell Cobras and Army Apache is exactly whats needed, and nothing wrong with that being operated by USMC and teh Army respectively, and RN operated for RM.
People don't usually join army or airforces and then expect to spend a lot of time on ships at sea, if they wanted to do that, they'd have joined the navy.
A guy I know, his Grandson is just about to embark on Queen Liz with 617 Sqn, which he's not hugely estatic about, for that the reason that if he'd wanted to go to sea he'd have joined the bloody Navy not the RAF.
So why is CAS needed by the army, but the tactical battle bus (heavy lift Chinook) a RAF asset?People don't usually join army or airforces and then expect to spend a lot of time on ships at sea, if they wanted to do that, they'd have joined the navy.
A guy I know, his Grandson is just about to embark on Queen Liz with 617 Sqn, which he's not hugely estatic about, for that the reason that if he'd wanted to go to sea he'd have joined the bloody Navy not the RAF.
My sympathy for a bloke that thought he'd spend his career in hotels
Evanivitch said:
So why is CAS needed by the army, but the tactical battle bus (heavy lift Chinook) a RAF asset?
No idea........RAF top brass not wanting to give up its toys.....but to me it would make much more sense for the Wokka's to be AAC rather than RAF.Then, once Puma is retired, there would be no more need for RAF helo ops, now that they've had the SAR role removed from them as well.
aeropilot said:
Seight_Returns said:
When the USMC starts saying that F-35B is a waste of time, then it's time to start worrying.
But it is, but they won't ever admit it.There was never any need for the USMC to need a hugely expensive stealth jet for their CAS needs, as its simply unessessary. By the time a USMC amphibious combat group is sitting off a beach, the need for stealth has long passed! And no USMC amphib force is ever going anywhere without a USN CBG, so they really don't even need their own FJ's, but they have a lot of clout in the corridors of power, and thus they can continue to command nice toys for their own toy box, whether its really needed or not.
If it hadn't been for the USMC (and had Dick Cheney not been an a
hole) F-35 might have ended up not being the disaster it has, as there would only have been the A version, not the lash up of the B, that compromised the A, and the USN have never wanted the C from day one.Whilst you may think the F35 is a disaster (and I think it was the wrong choice for UK plc), every UK pilot I've spoken with on the F35 is unequivocal in their love for it. For its many flaws and the opportunity costs of investing in the programme, the folk flying it think it's bloody epic and regardless of flavour, the F35 brings enormous JADO wins that the USMC and UK can leverage over and above the love WAFUs have for it..
aeropilot said:
But it is, but they won't ever admit it.
There was never any need for the USMC to need a hugely expensive stealth jet for their CAS needs, as its simply unessessary. By the time a USMC amphibious combat group is sitting off a beach, the need for stealth has long passed! And no USMC amphib force is ever going anywhere without a USN CBG, so they really don't even need their own FJ's, but they have a lot of clout in the corridors of power, and thus they can continue to command nice toys for their own toy box, whether its really needed or not.
If it hadn't been for the USMC (and had Dick Cheney not been an ahole) F-35 might have ended up not being the disaster it has, as there would only have been the A version, not the lash up of the B, that compromised the A, and the USN have never wanted the C from day one.
I thought part of the deal with the USMC was ability to operate forward/separately of the "big war" machine, and more "covertly"/hastily? Thus the stealth and flexibility brief of the F35Bs is more suited to their domain? There was never any need for the USMC to need a hugely expensive stealth jet for their CAS needs, as its simply unessessary. By the time a USMC amphibious combat group is sitting off a beach, the need for stealth has long passed! And no USMC amphib force is ever going anywhere without a USN CBG, so they really don't even need their own FJ's, but they have a lot of clout in the corridors of power, and thus they can continue to command nice toys for their own toy box, whether its really needed or not.
If it hadn't been for the USMC (and had Dick Cheney not been an a
hole) F-35 might have ended up not being the disaster it has, as there would only have been the A version, not the lash up of the B, that compromised the A, and the USN have never wanted the C from day one.Strikes me the "B" is the jet they should have focussed on building all along, with conventional/catobar variants a consideration, but one to be thought about once the B is in service so as not to try to do too much at once...
Teddy Lop said:
Strikes me the "B" is the jet they should have focussed on building all along, with conventional/catobar variants a consideration, but one to be thought about once the B is in service so as not to try to do too much at once...
I think you either design B at the same time as A and C (the F35 model) or you don't try to make them common at all.The requirements for "B" are sufficiently different to "A/C" that if you design "B" in isolation you'll never be able to meet the A/C requirements (you end up with a Harrier) and if you design A/C in isolation you'll never be able to meet the B requirements (you end up with an F16)
Teddy Lop said:
I thought part of the deal with the USMC was ability to operate forward/separately of the "big war" machine, and more "covertly"/hastily? Thus the stealth and flexibility brief of the F35Bs is more suited to their domain?
That was based on the Harrier design from the 60's, and the idea of austere operation of GR.3's from FOB's in forest clearings in Germany etc.That idea diminished as you went into the composite GR7/9 era, and has completely vanished with F-35B, as its far too delicate to ever operate in an austere FOB enviroment with regard to the protection of its stealth coatings etc., plus it can only be landed vertically onto a certain high grade thick concrete apron because of the extreme exhaust gas temps etc.
Stealthy tech construction and austere FOB are not compatible.
aeropilot said:
That was based on the Harrier design from the 60's, and the idea of austere operation of GR.3's from FOB's in forest clearings in Germany etc.
That idea diminished as you went into the composite GR7/9 era, and has completely vanished with F-35B, as its far too delicate to ever operate in an austere FOB enviroment with regard to the protection of its stealth coatings etc., plus it can only be landed vertically onto a certain high grade thick concrete apron because of the extreme exhaust gas temps etc.
Stealthy tech construction and austere FOB are not compatible.
Disagree.That idea diminished as you went into the composite GR7/9 era, and has completely vanished with F-35B, as its far too delicate to ever operate in an austere FOB enviroment with regard to the protection of its stealth coatings etc., plus it can only be landed vertically onto a certain high grade thick concrete apron because of the extreme exhaust gas temps etc.
Stealthy tech construction and austere FOB are not compatible.
The austere environment isn't a permanent or even semi-permanent basing, it's very much a case of using what's available and bringing the necessary equipment to that location and bringing the aircraft onto that location. Could be a car park, road, parade square.
Who cars if it kills the surface in one landing, pack up and move on the next site.
Evanivitch said:
Disagree.
The austere environment isn't a permanent or even semi-permanent basing, it's very much a case of using what's available and bringing the necessary equipment to that location and bringing the aircraft onto that location. Could be a car park, road, parade square.
Who cars if it kills the surface in one landing, pack up and move on the next site.
I think the flying debris being chucked around in the jet efflux is the issue, and it taking chucks out of your nice expensive stealthy aeroplane, which might mean it never takes off again, which is the issue (from the couple of airfield engineering docs I've seen on the subject) The austere environment isn't a permanent or even semi-permanent basing, it's very much a case of using what's available and bringing the necessary equipment to that location and bringing the aircraft onto that location. Could be a car park, road, parade square.
Who cars if it kills the surface in one landing, pack up and move on the next site.
Evanivitch said:
Disagree.
The austere environment isn't a permanent or even semi-permanent basing, it's very much a case of using what's available and bringing the necessary equipment to that location and bringing the aircraft onto that location. Could be a car park, road, parade square.
Who cars if it kills the surface in one landing, pack up and move on the next site.
The aircraft’s exhaust will heat the ground to 930°c within 10 seconds or so. Baked, rock hard pieces of debris would be blasted away and then ingested by the engine. Not ideal. The austere environment isn't a permanent or even semi-permanent basing, it's very much a case of using what's available and bringing the necessary equipment to that location and bringing the aircraft onto that location. Could be a car park, road, parade square.
Who cars if it kills the surface in one landing, pack up and move on the next site.
Tony1963 said:
The aircraft’s exhaust will heat the ground to 930°c within 10 seconds or so. Baked, rock hard pieces of debris would be blasted away and then ingested by the engine. Not ideal.
Does that also apply to a RVL? I'd struggle to believe that there's not a single existing surface use in civil engineering that couldn't withstand at least one aircraft doing an austere landing.Skyrocket21 said:
It looks like the F35 and F22 will have some loyal friends to play with, this is the Kratos XQ-58, I'm guessing within the next 10 years, probably less, there will be no need for a manned fighter jet, the F35 will be replaced with drones. Times are changing very rapidly.
That's not the idea of being a unmanned replacement for F-35 or F-22.The idea of that is 'cheap' force multiplication, one manned F-35/F-22 would each control a formation flight of up to 4 drone 'wingmen'.
Evanivitch said:
Tony1963 said:
The aircraft’s exhaust will heat the ground to 930°c within 10 seconds or so. Baked, rock hard pieces of debris would be blasted away and then ingested by the engine. Not ideal.
Does that also apply to a RVL? I'd struggle to believe that there's not a single existing surface use in civil engineering that couldn't withstand at least one aircraft doing an austere landing.1000c isn't that big of a deal for a lot of concrete, as in, it mark up but probably not explode horror murderdeathkill your fighter jet engine.
Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.
Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.
Teddy Lop said:
1000c isn't that big of a deal for a lot of concrete, as in, it mark up but probably not explode horror murderdeathkill your fighter jet engine.
Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.
Oh it is an issue. 1,000°c together with the force of the air would ruin your driveway. I can’t remember the details now, but an F-35 has definitely ruined at least one runway/apron. Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.
Tony1963 said:
Teddy Lop said:
1000c isn't that big of a deal for a lot of concrete, as in, it mark up but probably not explode horror murderdeathkill your fighter jet engine.
Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.
Oh it is an issue. 1,000°c together with the force of the air would ruin your driveway. I can’t remember the details now, but an F-35 has definitely ruined at least one runway/apron. Maybe there's some confusion between "specially approved licencesed concrete formula that the American defense contractors supply to the near limitless budgeted American war machine", and what else might not cause a problem as such.
If it can ruined an existing airfield surface, what do you think will happen if you try and plonk one done in an austere off-airfield situation as they did with the old Harrier GR.1/3's etc. on a road/car park/forest clearing in some austere FOB...
Not going to happen.
There's a similar issue with the V-22 as well, although not temp related, just downwash thrust from those massive tilt rotors on anything other than nice airfield concrete expanses (or a flat top)
I was chatting with an ex-Harrier guy at work today. He said that the forest clearing took two days for the REME to prepare. That’s clearing the runway and parking areas, laying the steel plating surfaces, as well as digging trenches etc. I’d hazard a guess that anything for the F-35 would take at least a week of preparation.
Tony1963 said:
I’d hazard a guess that anything for the F-35 would take at least a week of preparation.
And the rest, as you'll be preparing for 400-500mm thick PQ+ grade concrete slab and all that goes with that. And even then once you've poured it, you've got the 28 days for it to reach full strength before you'd even consider dropping a Dave onto it.
They will not be operating them in FOB situations like they did with the Harrier - period.
Full on new build base like they had in Afgan at Bastion perhaps, but that's not the point here.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff