What will the Government buy if the F35 is cancelled?

[aeropilot]

RizzoTheRat said:

Plus the SA80's got a free floating barrel, and longer barrel than the M16, so more accurate and longer range in a shorter package.
Or course there's some debate on how beneficial long range accuracy is most current operations, hence the longer barrelled LSW not being particularly popular, although they're brought in the 7.62 sharpshooter so who knows.

The Germans moved the battlefield goalposts, in terms of tactics when they introduced the MP43/44, (and the Luftwaffe, with the FG42) and the way they interacted the weapon types and use in each unit, with a mix of MP44 as general issue, with MG42 teams plus ZF41 dedicated marksman K98k and/or proper x4 scoped K98k's for sniper engagements.

The British and Soviets grasped it and the Soviets captured Hugo Schmeisser who had designed the MP43//44 and sent him off to work in the design team of the factory that by a strange coincidence, later came up with the AK-47 and the similar 7.62x39 and the UK came up with the .280 British (7x43) and later the EM-2 bullpup rifle to use it.
The septics though having won the war were dictating matters, and insisted on sticking with the 30-06, as the Garand, and BAR, and .30 Browning MG had served them well enough in WW2.

Churchill gave into the septics in the early 50's (as we owned them so much money) and so the excellent .280 British round was dropped and NATO went over to the 7.62x51 round, only for the septics to move the goalposts again, when they realised that 7.62x51 was next to useless in selective fire being way too powerfull in the M14 and FAL etc and thus we ended up with the 5.56mm and back where we were in the late 40's when the UK/Belgium and Canada proposed the .280 British.....but of course the 5.56 was American so that's OK. Of course, the Germans had proved with the FG42 that you can have a very effective selective fire battle rifle using a full power rifle cartridge, if you know what you're doing.

[IanH755]

aeropilot said:

IanH755 said:

Krikkit said:

I don't understand why we haven't planned to move to an AR15 derivative instead of having to keep updating the same design again.

A mixture of national pride, keeping a UK business going and overal "projected" cost.

National pride......err, they had to get H&K to do the redesign work that resulted in the A2 IIRC? (although, they had just been bought by BAe Systems, but BAe sold H&K again within 3 years!)

The news of a UK designed and built rifle being fixed by a UK owned company VS a UK designed and built rifle being scrapped to buy a US designed, Canadian built rifle which would cost more than fixing the UK rifle - Thats the "National Pride" issue.

[aeropilot]

IanH755 said:

aeropilot said:

IanH755 said:

Krikkit said:

I don't understand why we haven't planned to move to an AR15 derivative instead of having to keep updating the same design again.

A mixture of national pride, keeping a UK business going and overal "projected" cost.

National pride......err, they had to get H&K to do the redesign work that resulted in the A2 IIRC? (although, they had just been bought by BAe Systems, but BAe sold H&K again within 3 years!)

The news of a UK designed and built rifle being fixed by a UK owned company VS a UK designed and built rifle being scrapped to buy a US designed, Canadian built rifle which would cost more than fixing the UK rifle - Thats the "National Pride" issue.

I doubt many people would have given a fig....given that the Services had been using a Belgian designed rifle for the previous 30+ years prior to that.....which is largely why our home arms industry was by then non-existant and in no real position to come up with a decent design......and it showed, and the MOD, job-public as tax payer and the Armed Services as usual get the rough end of the deal.
UK plc could have taken the sensible option of doing what it had done with the FAL and licencing building our version of the AUG as Australia did, or the Canadian C7.

[Krikkit]

So to bump up this thread and de-clutter the QE thread...

USAF admits the F35 is a waste of time

And now Boeing has delivered a couple of the F-15EX to start testing, seems like it won't be long before a load more of them are on the way: https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

Edited by Krikkit on Wednesday 28th April 09:21

[Evanivitch]

Krikkit said:

So to bump up this thread and de-clutter the QE thread...

USAF admits the F35 is a waste of time

And now Boeing has delivered a couple of the F-15EX to start testing, seems like it won't be long before a load more of them are on the way: https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

Edited by Krikkit on Wednesday 28th April 09:21

Except they didn't?

The analogy is simple and something the USAF have been debating for over a decade now. Why use stealth, high performance, high-maintenance aircraft in uncontested airspace with little to no AA threat?

The A10 by legacy was able to fill that gap for CAS, but was still supplemented by all sorts including B1 and in the UK's case Eurofighter.

When in reality a bomb-truck with the right endurance, payload and STA equipment could have done the job. In much the same.way you might own a Ferrari, but you quite probably have a different car for doing the daily commute. But that's not always the cheapest option upfront.

[Seight_Returns]

I think what the USAF were actually saying is that they want a mix of F-35A and F-15EX.

When the USMC starts saying that F-35B is a waste of time, then it's time to start worrying.

[TheJimi]

Evanivitch said:

Krikkit said:

So to bump up this thread and de-clutter the QE thread...

USAF admits the F35 is a waste of time

And now Boeing has delivered a couple of the F-15EX to start testing, seems like it won't be long before a load more of them are on the way: https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

Edited by Krikkit on Wednesday 28th April 09:21

Except they didn't?

The analogy is simple and something the USAF have been debating for over a decade now. Why use stealth, high performance, high-maintenance aircraft in uncontested airspace with little to no AA threat?

The A10 by legacy was able to fill that gap for CAS, but was still supplemented by all sorts including B1 and in the UK's case Eurofighter.

When in reality a bomb-truck with the right endurance, payload and STA equipment could have done the job. In much the same.way you might own a Ferrari, but you quite probably have a different car for doing the daily commute. But that's not always the cheapest option upfront.

That's not how I read it.

I understood from that article that in essence, the F35 is too fragile to use at normal frequency, so they're reverting it to "Sunday Best".

[Evanivitch]

TheJimi said:

That's not how I read it.

I understood from that article that in essence, the F35 is too fragile to use at normal frequency, so they're reverting it to "Sunday Best".

Then you don't understand basic aircraft maintenance.

"We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”

Airframes have limited hours on them. Efforts are made to extend that, or to better quantify the loads, but time is the fundamental metric used across industry. Just like servicing your Ferrari, why rack up miles on your Ferrari doing the motorway commute, only then to have no service mileage left for the Sunday funtimes?

Why life the F35, if you know that technology wise it's good for 30-40 years, but the material components are expended doing low-tech bomb truck jobs in the sand box?

[TheJimi]

Evanivitch said:

TheJimi said:

That's not how I read it.

I understood from that article that in essence, the F35 is too fragile to use at normal frequency, so they're reverting it to "Sunday Best".

Then you don't understand basic aircraft maintenance.

Are you simply incapable of responding without condescension?

"We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”

The commentary read to me as being that ideally they’d like to use it more, but they can’t, because of the described issues in both reliability & supply chain – hence the comment about not wanting to burn up the capability.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 10:42

[Evanivitch]

TheJimi said:

Evanivitch said:

TheJimi said:

That's not how I read it.

I understood from that article that in essence, the F35 is too fragile to use at normal frequency, so they're reverting it to "Sunday Best".

Then you don't understand basic aircraft maintenance.

Are you simply incapable of responding without condescension?

"We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”

The commentary read to me as being that ideally they’d like to use it more, but they can’t, because of the described issues in both reliability & supply chain – hence the comment about not wanting to burn up the capability.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 10:42

That's because you've read the commentary and assumed it as fact.

The F35 does replace the F15/F16/F18/Harrier/A10 in a whole host of roles as a 5th gen aircraft. But the reality is we don't need a 5th gen aircraft to fight many of the modern conflicts the US finds themselves in. But they might have to at short notice.

The F35 continues to go through concurrent development and manufacturing. It's not ideal. But it's also not Lockheed Martin's decision to do that. It does drive retrofit costs and potentially early obsolescence (Which Eurofighter had the same issue on tranche 1).

[AlexIT]

Krikkit said:

And now Boeing has delivered a couple of the F-15EX to start testing, seems like it won't be long before a load more of them are on the way: https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15ex/

Extremely technical post to follow:

The F-15 is IMHO the most beautiful aircraft design ever

End of Extreme technical post

[TheJimi]

Evanivitch said:

TheJimi said:

Evanivitch said:

TheJimi said:

That's not how I read it.

I understood from that article that in essence, the F35 is too fragile to use at normal frequency, so they're reverting it to "Sunday Best".

Then you don't understand basic aircraft maintenance.

Are you simply incapable of responding without condescension?

"We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”

The commentary read to me as being that ideally they’d like to use it more, but they can’t, because of the described issues in both reliability & supply chain – hence the comment about not wanting to burn up the capability.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 10:42

That's because you've read the commentary and assumed it as fact.

Cool. Fancy pointing out where I said anything that pertains to me taking the article as fact? I think given that I used language such as "I understood from that article..." and "the commentary read to me..." would indicate that I'm referring to the content of the article, nothing more, nothing less

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 11:34

[Evanivitch]

TheJimi said:

Evanivitch said:

TheJimi said:

Evanivitch said:

TheJimi said:

That's not how I read it.

I understood from that article that in essence, the F35 is too fragile to use at normal frequency, so they're reverting it to "Sunday Best".

Then you don't understand basic aircraft maintenance.

Are you simply incapable of responding without condescension?

"We don’t want to burn up capability now and wish we had it later.”

The commentary read to me as being that ideally they’d like to use it more, but they can’t, because of the described issues in both reliability & supply chain – hence the comment about not wanting to burn up the capability.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 10:42

That's because you've read the commentary and assumed it as fact.

Cool. Fancy pointing out where I said anything that pertains to me taking the article as fact? I think given that I used language such as "I understood from that article" and "reads to me as..." would indicate that I'm referring to the content of the article, nothing more, northing less

You must be a politician with such eloquent use of weasel words, or perhaps a career bull*******.

[TheJimi]

The irony being that I asked you to back something up, and you responded with deflection - just like a politician. That much is going to be obvious to anyone reading this exchange.

Look, I've no idea what your problem is, but I've no desire to waste any more time with you.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 11:45

[aeropilot]

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 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.

[Evanivitch]

TheJimi said:

The irony being that I asked you to back something up, and you responded with deflection - just like a politician. That much is going to be obvious to anyone reading this exchange.

Look, I've no idea what your problem is, but I've no desire to waste any more time with you.

Edited by TheJimi on Wednesday 28th April 11:45

So you weren't the one that cropped down my response that contained the discussion that you failed to respond to?

[Evanivitch]

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.

The USMC won't admit it because they've got a 5th gen STOVL aircraft and got the USAF and USN to pony up part of the costs! Their only alternative would be keep AV-8B or ditch USMC fixed wing aviation (which makes more sense to me!)

[aeropilot]

Evanivitch said:

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.

The USMC won't admit it because they've got a 5th gen STOVL aircraft and got the USAF and USN to pony up part of the costs! Their only alternative would be keep AV-8B or ditch USMC fixed wing aviation (which makes more sense to me!)

Exactly, as said, they have the clout in the corridors of power to get what they want, whether they should have it or not.
Yes, I agree, ditching USMC fixed wing aviation does seem the sensible option, but again, never going to happen because of the politics.
As I said, they ain't going anywhere without a USN CBG, which is pretty much what they have the USN carrier air wing for anyway. 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.

[Evanivitch]

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...

[hidetheelephants]

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...

RM are part of the navy, why would they want anything to do with the pongos?