F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[ADMk2]

The threat from advanced double-digit SAMs tends to get overlooked and trivialized. These systems are lethal against legacy platforms. They are proliferating and will be sold to anyone with the cash and can be put in place with relative ease. Opposing Gen 5 designs may also pose a threat down the road as we can expect these may prolifeate as well.

The F-35 will form the backbone of the US and its allied fighter fleets for the next several decades. It can handle low and high end threat scenarios. Spending money for a platform capable of only the former is counter-productive.Building less capable platforms just eats up limited funds and gives an opponent more opportunities for target practice.

That's the interesting thing about many of the arguments against the F-35 like the "it's only got narrow-band stealth" that retards promulgate as truth on the Internetz without having the faintest idea what frequencies the F-35's LO can successfully manage.

So many say the F-35 shouldn't proceed because of this. They deliberately overlook that every OTHER aircraft will fare even worse than an F-35 if this IS the case, having little or no LO at ALL...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They deliberately overlook that every OTHER aircraft will fare even worse than an F-35 if this IS the case, having little or no LO at ALL...

Not the F-111S!

 

[riksavage]

Yes they have been designed to be converted to CATOBAR but that is very different to being designed to be a CATOBAR carrier, particularly for the F-35C. The F-35C is designed to operated from a particular type of CV and it is not the CVF. To fly them from the CVF will result in compromises because of speed limitations and therefore WOD limitations. No amount of chest thumping can create wind when it isn’t there.







War fought a shoestring budget?



So all training will be conducted in the USN. Fair enough but not exactly what is called a sovereign capability.



Somehow different to the F-35B? An extra 100-200 NM is not the difference between ‘strike’ and ‘deep strike’.



The USN’s UCAV program is called UCLASS and it is an ISR asset. If the UK can’t afford naval AEW then it won’t be getting naval ISR. Besuides who says you couldn’t fly something like UCLASS from a STOVL carrier. One option is the GA-ASI Predator-C. All you would need is to string a single wire and you could fly and recover these from a STOVL CVF without any significant disruption to your F-35B and helo air wing.



Yeap, no cash.



The F-35B is not about to get cancelled and certainly not if the UK maintained a 130 strong commitment to it. This decision was all about money. The UK has little of it and the carrier force got cancelled. And when it is rebuilt it will be a shadow of itself.

Your love of the B is admirable. The UK will end up with two 65k ton ships operating fixed wing assets for the first time in 30+ years. Plus the potential to host a far more varied number of fixed wing aircraft will bring advantages moving forward.

The decision to go with the C was taken with our key allies in mind, this does not mean the UK can't or won't act unilaterally. It just makes cooperation that much easier particularly if our closest maritime ally (France) delays PA2 until CdG is scheduled to retire.

Time will tell whether your dire and somewhat demeaning predictions come true, however I trust the RN's assessment teams over civilian defense enthusiasts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

however I trust the RN's assessment teams over civilian defense enthusiasts.

as Abe is not in that latter subset, then one wonders whether introspection is in play here....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Your love of the B is admirable.

LOL, its always been a better solution for the RN, which is kind of why they chose it first… Love doesn’t come into it. I’m not an Objectum Sexual. ;-)

The UK will end up with two 65k ton ships operating fixed wing assets for the first time in 30+ years. Plus the potential to host a far more varied number of fixed wing aircraft will bring advantages moving forward.

Well its not quite sure they will end up with two ships. If Brazil makes the right offer there can be only one! As to potential the RN are world’s masters in potential the past 40 years. And look where its gotten them.

The decision to go with the C was taken with our key allies in mind, this does not mean the UK can't or won't act unilaterally. It just makes cooperation that much easier particularly if our closest maritime ally (France) delays PA2 until CdG is scheduled to retire.

And the original decision for the B? Don’t you think that took into account the UK’s key allies? I’m sure all of them would prefer the RN to have two carriers in service right now and for the next five years followed by two much better carriers each with 36 5th generation strike fighters operable 24-7. Now the UK has no carriers and in nine years will have one with 24 5th generation strike fighters that can’t fly beyond range of an accessible land base and only during the day. If you have your own effective force there is no need to cooperate beyond the usual 1,000 ship navy practises.

Time will tell whether your dire and somewhat demeaning predictions come true, however I trust the RN's assessment teams over civilian defense enthusiasts.

LOL. The RN was forced into this situation! Didn’t you notice? They are the ones that originally decided they wanted the F-35B and then had all their money taken away from them and this is the best they could come up with. Of course it is demeaning but that’s what happens when you are forced to downgrade.

The insane, “there is nothing wrong, nothing to see, move along please”, attitude by British defence enthusiasts over this change is a group think effort to try and pretend your navy didn’t just get the rug pulled out from under it. At least back in the 70s there were no illusions that the decommissioning of HM Ships Eagle and Ark Royal was a massive blow to the RN. Sharkey Ward may have gone nuts after he stopped flying but at least he as the courage to talk truth to power. The rest of you are blissfully denying the obvious body blow your navy just took.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not the F-111S!

No offense Abe, but that joke just was not funny.

Seriously folks, particularly those who have been slamming the F-35 programme, or suggesting that legacy platforms could fufill most of the F-35 roles...

People really need to sit down, read about and ponder what sort of capability requirements organizations like the USAF, USN/USMC FAA, RAF/RN FAA, RAAF, etc. al. have now, have for the near future, and have projected for long-term operation.

Yes, a legacy platform now, operating from a nearby airfield in previously sanitized airspace can be a bomb truck operating with impunity.

Also, given the tremendous level of airpower the US can bring to bear upon a target, the US will most likely be able to sanitize the airspace over most countries, even in the future. Such operations are likely going to have higher costs (fiscal, time and risk) before the airspace would be sufficiently secure to allow legacy platforms to operate safely.

For non-US nations, the lack of something with the capabilities the F-35 is supposed to have would in the future basically force said nations to either wait for the US to start air ops for at least a partial IADS rollback, or accept that their air arm is going to sustain higher losses. Continuing on with that thinking, how cost effective does it become if a particular mission profile starts requiring multiple legacy aircraft to have a chance at success, especially if the mission is also expected to cause losses, regardless of success. Spending a few million less for one aircraft v. another stops looking like a bargain if you need twice as many to ensure success, nevermind the cost of aircraft losses.

Again, this is really about capability delivery, and what in this case the common fighter of the future likely needs to have in order to deliver its capabilities.

-Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

Not the F-111S!

Er yes perhaps, but I've heard that for some strange reason RAAF seems to prefer spending billions on an aircraft that can actually fight against a threat and drop bombs on a target rather than just decamp at Mach 2.5 any time one of the deadly threats in our region pops up.

Seems crazy I know to expect your main strike capability actually has the ability to strike a defended target, but that's what those "corrupt, nincompoops" in the RAAF seem to require...

 

[ADMk2]

No offense Abe, but that joke just was not funny.

I didn't think it was too bad?

I'm almost certain he was being facetious...

 

[Feanor]

The threat from advanced double-digit SAMs tends to get overlooked and trivialized. These systems are lethal against legacy platforms. They are proliferating and will be sold to anyone with the cash and can be put in place with relative ease. Opposing Gen 5 designs may also pose a threat down the road as we can expect these may prolifeate as well.

Very true. Systems, that only 10 years ago, were very rare and high-end assets, are now becoming common and easily accessible. The very recently bombed Libya had a contract signed for acquiring the S-300PMU2. They hadn't been delivered when things went south, but this is an excellent illustration of how NATO was possibly only a few months away from having to deal with modern SAMs with legacy aircraft. This isn't to say that NATO wouldn't have been able to do it, but the threat is very real and any suggestions that the F-35 is unnecessary is ridiculous to put it mildly.

The F-35 will form the backbone of the US and its allied fighter fleets for the next several decades. It can handle low and high end threat scenarios. Spending money for a platform capable of only the former is counter-productive.Building less capable platforms just eats up limited funds and gives an opponent more opportunities for target practice.

Given the already alarming rates of western disarmament, the F-35 becomes ever more necessary as other assets are sacrificed to budget cuts. Especially if the actors in question want to retain the ability to act independently, without the USAF.

 

[alexsa]

Not the F-111S!

To quote you, this could be ............... Objectum Sexual ............for the proponents. Nothing else seems to make sense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

To quote you, this could be ............... Objectum Sexual ............for the proponents. Nothing else seems to make sense.

is this a euphemism for intellectual onanism??

careful, you'll get accused of being a victim of govt groupthink.....

 

[StobieWan]

No offense Abe, but that joke just was not funny.

Well, I laughed : )

And let's face it. the whole concept was a joke anyways. But Abe makes the point nicely - the Auspower guys bang on about how vulnerable the F35 would in a high threat environment and act all blase at the idea of a non LO platform having to blitz in while dodging SAM's from 100km out.

Hey ho

 

[alexsa]

Well, I laughed : )

And let's face it. the whole concept was a joke anyways. But Abe makes the point nicely - the Auspower guys bang on about how vulnerable the F35 would in a high threat environment and act all blase at the idea of a non LO platform having to blitz in while dodging SAM's from 100km out.

Hey ho

No, they did thingk about this seriously and came very sensible suggestion that after completley rewiring the aircraft, re winging it, fitting new engines (well up rated engines from the f-14) and well as all new systems there would be some tweaks to reduce its RCS from that of an apartment block to semi detached house.

 

[StingrayOZ]

CENSORED Due to stupidness.

Well if your upgrading it that far, why not make it CATOBAR capable and sell it to the RN and the USN. After all, with modern materials it would be so much lighter and have so much more powerful engines it might actually make carrier requirements. Thus replacing the F-35A and F-35C.

Then by strapping JATO rockets all over it and floats we can sell it to the USMC, who could use it on the amphibs as a vertical take off sea plane. Thus exterminate that troublesome F-35B and giving Australia, thailand and Italy the carrier based strike force with the F-111. Being older, bigger, faster and with greater range than a F-15, F-16, french, would make it obviously the best plane to replace the F-35 with.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Then by strapping JATO rockets all over it and floats we can sell it to the USMC,

The F-111 doesn't need JATO for STOVL. You just add a motor to the wing pivot joints and they can flap. Generating lift without forward thrust.

 

[StobieWan]

How much of a hit is this wind over deck thing going to be? I did see some figures scribbled off the back of a fag packet relating to US catapults and speeds for the F111B carrier trials mapped over to the F35 that seemed to indicate with zero wind over the deck, a QE would have to make 10 knots or so to get a loaded F35C airborne. It was a hasty forum arithmetic exercise but it seemed feasible to my clueless eyes.

I'm not so sure the IFR thing is a showstopper either - yes, we'd need something, but Cobham already make a range of refuelling kit for the Hornet, they make the probe for the F35C and B, it's not looking like a huge mountain to climb to get the F35C on deck with buddy buddy refuelling - it's more expense I agree and another unintended consequence of the belated shift to CATOBAR.

My own suspicion is that the entire F35B > C move was purely to get the costs and timings out of the current parliament, and ironically, we're no worse off now as the delay for the B model was announced not long afterwards, pushing ISD for that a couple of years along the line as I understand it.

CVF will get AEW - we've kit from the Sea King that can be palletised as the cheapest option - it's not as good as E2 by a long way and I still hold out hope we can carve a deal with the French for a joint force of E2's with maintenance done centrally.

Conversion route for pilots, I can't see any point in spending the money on a unique path for the FAA/RAF - we're slated for maybe forty jets, some of which may never see a carrier deck and once the initial surge is past, that'd mean maybe 2-4 pilots a year going through that route - it just makes more sense to tap into existing US facilities. If in the future we end up running both carriers semi regularly and having forty or sixty jets active, it's perhaps something we can look at again but right now, it's money spent on a general feeling of well being. If things get so bad with the US that we can't use their training facilities, well, our fortunes are so closely interlinked, that we'd have far more pressing matters to be concerned over at that point.



I dunno, it's been a long winding road but fingers crossed, we might have a decent carrier stood up in a few years.

Ian

Yes they have been designed to be converted to CATOBAR but that is very different to being designed to be a CATOBAR carrier, particularly for the F-35C. The F-35C is designed to operated from a particular type of CV and it is not the CVF. To fly them from the CVF will result in compromises because of speed limitations and therefore WOD limitations. No amount of chest thumping can create wind when it isn’t there.



Since when has hosting assets from another nation been more important than having your own?



War fought a shoestring budget?



So all training will be conducted in the USN. Fair enough but not exactly what is called a sovereign capability.



Somehow different to the F-35B? An extra 100-200 NM is not the difference between ‘strike’ and ‘deep strike’.



The USN’s UCAV program is called UCLASS and it is an ISR asset. If the UK can’t afford naval AEW then it won’t be getting naval ISR. Besuides who says you couldn’t fly something like UCLASS from a STOVL carrier. One option is the GA-ASI Predator-C. All you would need is to string a single wire and you could fly and recover these from a STOVL CVF without any significant disruption to your F-35B and helo air wing.



Yeap, no cash.



The F-35B is not about to get cancelled and certainly not if the UK maintained a 130 strong commitment to it. This decision was all about money. The UK has little of it and the carrier force got cancelled. And when it is rebuilt it will be a shadow of itself.

 

[gf0012-aust]

No, they did thingk about this seriously and came very sensible suggestion that after completley rewiring the aircraft, re winging it, fitting new engines (well up rated engines from the f-14) and well as all new systems there would be some tweaks to reduce its RCS from that of an apartment block to semi detached house.

On top of which they've been able to enhance the capability of a 3rd gen plane that could operate robustly in contested and complex space without a dependancy on the rest of the system enablers....

who needs LO? no wonder the chinese and russians are working on their own LO developments, they've got no idea either...:smash

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How much of a hit is this wind over deck thing going to be? I did see some figures scribbled off the back of a fag packet relating to US catapults and speeds for the F111B carrier trials mapped over to the F35 that seemed to indicate with zero wind over the deck, a QE would have to make 10 knots or so to get a loaded F35C airborne. It was a hasty forum arithmetic exercise but it seemed feasible to my clueless eyes.

Well trying to quantify F-35C performance from that of the F-111B is plain crazy. However the F-35C has been designed to operate from a USN CV which has a 10 knot speed advantage over the CVF.

I'm not so sure the IFR thing is a showstopper either - yes, we'd need something, but Cobham already make a range of refuelling kit for the Hornet, they make the probe for the F35C and B, it's not looking like a huge mountain to climb to get the F35C on deck with buddy buddy refuelling - it's more expense I agree and another unintended consequence of the belated shift to CATOBAR.

Well obviously if the UK develops a buddy-buddy IFR system for the F-35C then the problem goes away. But they actually have to do this. And it is possibly more than just slinging a IFR pod under a F-35C because three needs to be the right fuel access and so on. Until they clear an F-35C buddy-buddy capability they will not have a recovery capability for night, pitching deck or over the horizon from land operations.

My own suspicion is that the entire F35B > C move was purely to get the costs and timings out of the current parliament, and ironically, we're no worse off now as the delay for the B model was announced not long afterwards, pushing ISD for that a couple of years along the line as I understand it.

You are worse off. You no longer have carriers today!

CVF will get AEW - we've kit from the Sea King that can be palletised as the cheapest option - it's not as good as E2 by a long way and I still hold out hope we can carve a deal with the French for a joint force of E2's with maintenance done centrally.

Well the RN can still fly the Sea King AEWs from the CVF. May smack of Shackletons but they do work. Even if upgrade onto Merlin it is still a good capability. Hawkeye may be better and the E-2D have all sorts of great capabilities but it’s not a deal clincher. Especially since there is no funding to acquire any (they aren’t cheap).

Conversion route for pilots, I can't see any point in spending the money on a unique path for the FAA/RAF - we're slated for maybe forty jets, some of which may never see a carrier deck and once the initial surge is past, that'd mean maybe 2-4 pilots a year going through that route - it just makes more sense to tap into existing US facilities. If in the future we end up running both carriers semi regularly and having forty or sixty jets active, it's perhaps something we can look at again but right now, it's money spent on a general feeling of well being. If things get so bad with the US that we can't use their training facilities, well, our fortunes are so closely interlinked, that we'd have far more pressing matters to be concerned over at that point.

It’s not just about access by using US training it is about controlling your numbers and having the potential to increase and even decrease your training commitment. By using US facilities you are locked into a certain number decided several years in advance. Also an indigenous carrier training capability gives you lots of flexibility in maintaining skills for aircrew who aren’t assigned to an operational squadron.

Not having these kinds of things is OK for a token force providing a partial capability that will not be present every day of the year, year after year. Which is what the UK has defunded down to.

 

[Doering]

There is a lot to read in this thread. Just want to add that with the global economy the way it is, plans and dreams for these advanced aircraft become very limited. I'm sure new designs on the backburner will never see the light of day, especially in many European countries.

 

[LGB]

While I would agree a land base offers a greater theoretical sortie rate ramp space is finite and sometimes a carrier is the only way to bring aircraft in closer or at times the only way. As far as BMD I'd rather depend upon a mobile carrier with multiple Aegis platforms than Patriot or THAAD.

As far as sortie rate while it's often said the new class will generate 160 sorties a day the USS Nimitz did put almost 800 strike sorties (almost 1,000 fixed wing) in 4 days during an exercise about 10 years ago.

Carriers can also be easier to replenish at sea than keeping certain airbases in supply. The bit about the air department only having one shift is incorrect. A USN carrier can operate 24/7 with each watch doing 12 hours. In any case personnel are limited at any airbase either afloat or ashore.

Carriers provide mobile, sovereign air power just about anywhere you want it but they are NOT more efficient than land air bases. Quite the opposite and by a long way. Also carriers launch faster sorties for shorter periods of time. Carriers can not operate 24-7. They only have one shift of crew for the flight deck and they need time to sleep, eat, maintain, play xBox, etc. Fixed air bases are a long way from being put out of business by ballistic missiles. Air bases, even non-hardened ones, are very difficult to put of action. The US has plentiful BMD capability via Patriot and THAAD to make any attacks on airbases a waste of missiles.