JSF Delay, time to get out of this program?
Discussion
Or to put it another way, wave goodbye to fixed wing FAA??
The reason, twofold.
Firstly,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index...
And perhaps the most damming,for such an expensive project, it totally under-performs.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/02/16...
The reason, twofold.
Firstly,
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index...
And perhaps the most damming,for such an expensive project, it totally under-performs.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/02/16...
That looks very bad for the F35. I never considered it a viable replacement for the F16 and Harrier and it looks even worse now. Even if they performance of the Sukhoi has been "over-egged" it still leaves the F35 unable to compete with it. It's too many things to too many people and was developed from the wrong angle. The F16 was developed as a Light weight fighter first and was developed into a Multi role attack aircraft rather like we are doing with the Typhoon. The F35 was given too many roles to start with so it lacks precision in any of them.
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 17th February 13:34
I like that PAK-FA.
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
Interesting article in the times a while back about running a fleet of super tucanos for COIN:
Mainly because they're so cheap...
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
Interesting article in the times a while back about running a fleet of super tucanos for COIN:
Mainly because they're so cheap...
Mojocvh said:
Or to put it another way, wave goodbye to fixed wing FAA??
Well, I agree with binning the F-35B, just don't see any point in it for what we need tbh.However, I disagree that it should mean waving goodbye to fixed wing FAA....not that strictly speaking the FAA actually exists anymore, assuming that the 2 x carriers wouldn't get binned at the same time.
Economies of scale could be achieved by making our two the same as the French new carrier rather than substantially different, and with cat n trap, either buy cheaper Rafale from the French as well, or maybe better still, the proposed Sea Grippen that the Swedes are looking to develop and flog. The Gripen is a co=op deal with BAe anyway, so politically, jobs wise, this might be a better option. Cheaper a/c, and just as multi-role, and cross-training with the frogs and spams could be employed to offset the RN's knowledge gap in cat n trap ops during the past 30+ years.
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
Or to put it another way, wave goodbye to fixed wing FAA??
Well, I agree with binning the F-35B, just don't see any point in it for what we need tbh.However, I disagree that it should mean waving goodbye to fixed wing FAA....not that strictly speaking the FAA actually exists anymore, assuming that the 2 x carriers wouldn't get binned at the same time.
Economies of scale could be achieved by making our two the same as the French new carrier rather than substantially different, and with cat n trap, either buy cheaper Rafale from the French as well, or maybe better still, the proposed Sea Grippen that the Swedes are looking to develop and flog. The Gripen is a co=op deal with BAe anyway, so politically, jobs wise, this might be a better option. Cheaper a/c, and just as multi-role, and cross-training with the frogs and spams could be employed to offset the RN's knowledge gap in cat n trap ops during the past 30+ years.
And why build oil burning carriers anyway, never understood that one, the RN are good with kettles these days.
Mojocvh said:
aeropilot said:
Mojocvh said:
Or to put it another way, wave goodbye to fixed wing FAA??
Well, I agree with binning the F-35B, just don't see any point in it for what we need tbh.However, I disagree that it should mean waving goodbye to fixed wing FAA....not that strictly speaking the FAA actually exists anymore, assuming that the 2 x carriers wouldn't get binned at the same time.
Economies of scale could be achieved by making our two the same as the French new carrier rather than substantially different, and with cat n trap, either buy cheaper Rafale from the French as well, or maybe better still, the proposed Sea Grippen that the Swedes are looking to develop and flog. The Gripen is a co=op deal with BAe anyway, so politically, jobs wise, this might be a better option. Cheaper a/c, and just as multi-role, and cross-training with the frogs and spams could be employed to offset the RN's knowledge gap in cat n trap ops during the past 30+ years.
And why build oil burning carriers anyway, never understood that one, the RN are good with kettles these days.
One of the reasons they decided against Cat and Trap was the training and need to remain current is greater than STO(R)VL. Wouldn't be able to surge the RAF to support the FAA so either no RAF F-35s (not likely since they want it to replace their Tornados and Harriers) or massively bigger FAA, which we can't afford either.
strudel said:
I like that PAK-FA.
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
Interesting article in the times a while back about running a fleet of super tucanos for COIN:
Mainly because they're so cheap...
It's OK getting a few for counter insurgency but given the Threat that PAK-FA poses I wouldn't get many. They would be sitting ducks against a "real" Air Force. Yes the war we are fighting now could use them but they lack flexibility and capability.Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
Interesting article in the times a while back about running a fleet of super tucanos for COIN:
Mainly because they're so cheap...
the second link of the OPs post seems to be saying that the PAK-FA makes all other aircraft redundant? that can't be right can it? that would suggest a revolutionin equivalence from goin from spitfires to jet power.
Isn't modern air combat all about shoot and scoot? how effective your integrated radar and weapons systems are?
Isn't modern air combat all about shoot and scoot? how effective your integrated radar and weapons systems are?
The delays are par for the course for most large military programs 
The questions about how effective the aircraft will be is on the other hand what we know in the trade as b
ks.
The person behind these is a bloke called Dr Carlo Kopp who is a "free lance defence analyst", his doctorate is in computer science BTW.
His opinions of the JSF are based around his "independent" research that the stealth features on the JSF won't really work very well particularly from any angle that isn't head on and therefore the JSF will be beaten in combat by Russian aircraft.
Personally I don't think this passes a very basic logic test, the US has been able to design the F117 and B2 which have effectively proved themselves as being very difficult to detect and the F22 which is claimed to be similarly stealthy. Why exactly Lockheed Martin would then design a fighter that was materially significantly worse from this perspective and then the US DOD then pick this design in a competitive process makes very little sense.
In reality the JSF is likely to be difficult to detect, equipped with very effective sensors and then networked effectively with a whole load more JSF and other platforms to create a very effective air to air or air to ground system.
The questions about how effective the aircraft will be is on the other hand what we know in the trade as b
ks.The person behind these is a bloke called Dr Carlo Kopp who is a "free lance defence analyst", his doctorate is in computer science BTW.
His opinions of the JSF are based around his "independent" research that the stealth features on the JSF won't really work very well particularly from any angle that isn't head on and therefore the JSF will be beaten in combat by Russian aircraft.
Personally I don't think this passes a very basic logic test, the US has been able to design the F117 and B2 which have effectively proved themselves as being very difficult to detect and the F22 which is claimed to be similarly stealthy. Why exactly Lockheed Martin would then design a fighter that was materially significantly worse from this perspective and then the US DOD then pick this design in a competitive process makes very little sense.
In reality the JSF is likely to be difficult to detect, equipped with very effective sensors and then networked effectively with a whole load more JSF and other platforms to create a very effective air to air or air to ground system.
Kopp is a bit out there. He wanted Auz to buy more F22s than the USAF and worships the Flanker as some kind of unstoppable uber fighter.
He also seriously suggested a ground up rebuild of the F111 fleet in the mid 00s. It would have been an unmitigated disaster and was fueled by a beleif that Auz must be albe to bomb Indonisia.
He also seriously suggested a ground up rebuild of the F111 fleet in the mid 00s. It would have been an unmitigated disaster and was fueled by a beleif that Auz must be albe to bomb Indonisia.
Elroy Blue said:
strudel said:
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
The Chinook Mk3 had nothing to do with the US. It was a fiasco Boscombe Down managed to produce all by themselves.fadeaway said:
Elroy Blue said:
strudel said:
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
The Chinook Mk3 had nothing to do with the US. It was a fiasco Boscombe Down managed to produce all by themselves.On the flipside the Typhoon came from a demonstrator BAE built with little funding which tends to produce the best aircraft. At the Time the Aircraft known as the EAP was so good the RAF was all for building it with minimum modification and without any partners. It was a bit of a "bodge" job with a tail fin and engines from a Tornado and various parts "nicked" from the spares bin.
Edited by telecat on Friday 19th February 09:58
telecat said:
fadeaway said:
Elroy Blue said:
strudel said:
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
The Chinook Mk3 had nothing to do with the US. It was a fiasco Boscombe Down managed to produce all by themselves.On the flipside the Typhoon came from a demonstrator BAE built with little funding which tends to produce the best aircraft. At the Time the Aircraft known as the EAP was so good the RAF was all for building it with minimum modification and without any partners. It was a bit of a "bodge" job with a tail fin and engines from a Tornado and various parts "nicked" from the spares bin.
Edited by telecat on Friday 19th February 09:58
And we can add in our own MoD for some of the spec issues with the Typhoon - the RAF don't really want any of the planes they've got, preferring to replace them with tranche 3 versions if they could.
fadeaway said:
telecat said:
fadeaway said:
Elroy Blue said:
strudel said:
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
The Chinook Mk3 had nothing to do with the US. It was a fiasco Boscombe Down managed to produce all by themselves.On the flipside the Typhoon came from a demonstrator BAE built with little funding which tends to produce the best aircraft. At the Time the Aircraft known as the EAP was so good the RAF was all for building it with minimum modification and without any partners. It was a bit of a "bodge" job with a tail fin and engines from a Tornado and various parts "nicked" from the spares bin.
Edited by telecat on Friday 19th February 09:58
And we can add in our own MoD for some of the spec issues with the Typhoon - the RAF don't really want any of the planes they've got, preferring to replace them with tranche 3 versions if they could.
Elroy Blue said:
strudel said:
Seriously though, we should stop with buying aircraft off the yanks. We've had issues with the F35 and who knows if it could end up like the chinook MK3.
The Chinook Mk3 had nothing to do with the US. It was a fiasco Boscombe Down managed to produce all by themselves.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff