OzairF-35 performed it’s first flight in december 2016, was supposed to get IOC in 4/5 years, it reached it (with relaxed perameters, it seems) in 9/10, it’s the double of time for the ones that can make use of a calendar.
What you write is so hard to read…
F-35A first fight was Dec 06. At the point of first flight IOC for F-35A was scheduled for 2013. Instead the airframe IOC’ed in 2016.
For a comparison: Su-35S made its first flight in february 2008, is in service from 2014 and went, according to russian standard that doesn’t envisage IOC and LRIP, in full scale production from the beginning.
The Su-35 is a poor comparison as it is a derivative airframe.
Yes, also because any significative delays mean the need to recalibrate the program to keep pace with technological advancements.
Said so, if you think that it means that the program is somewhere in jeopardy , I fear you will be deluded, at this point there is not any viable alternative, so they would keep on with it and wouldn’t cut anything in its numbers as it not just “too big to fall”, it’s also “too costly to reduce orders”.
My cost reference was to the original 2001 budget projection which was for 3000 aircraft. In 2004 that number was dropped to 2458 aircraft which has stayed essentially stable since. What I provided is the percentage that the program is over budget, compared to the original 2001 estimate (which was revised a couple of years later as it was clearly deficient).
Not sure what deluded has to do with anything?????
OzairPer the original 2001 contract the USMC/USAF IOCs were 2010/11 but ended up 2015/16… that’s a 5 year delay for you who lack math skills.
And that IOC date was changed in 2004 to reflect the 2012 date based on additional requirements added to the program and the weight gain saga.
The cost is pretty clear as well, total program cost is approximately 35% over the original 2001 budget, adjusted for inflation and incorporating reduced aircraft buy numbers.
OzairHi all, are there drones for close air support or border security on the market? I have done some research and have not seen anything however I am not an expert.
Plenty available for CAS. As for border security a good example is what is going on with the US/Mexican border. http://dronecenter.bard.edu/customs-and-border-protection-drones/
Ozairno, MBDA fully realize it would take a re-design to make it work, i dont think its going to happen.
you got a point that it only need to compare to SH.
no, moderate levels of rcs like F-22 & F-35 does not compare with a flying pancake void of protruding control surfaces
Still no sources then, just a generic science paper that contains no numbers.
OzairYes, and?
More than was needed to fill up the Garibaldi deck and hangar and actually moved into the Cavour, alloving us to have an operative carrier at sea and not in the junkyard like someone up north.
The numbers are insignificant. You are talking about less than 7.5% more aircraft to the total.
So please, be a dear and inform the whole of us of concrete steps not just idle talkings, in the past or in the present done on that regard
You know, when I quote something in response to a question from you I expect you to read it, that way you might actually understand what was being stated. If you like you can read it again or simply take my word that a member of the British Air Staff stated they will consider the CTOL variant as they move towards the next SDSR. It is really simple.
For some unknown reason you seem to think they need to make a decision now, but they don’t. They have plenty of time to decide on the ratio, if any, of the F-35 buy given they expect to be receiving F-35Bs until 2028.
Ozair1] well, there is no room for the only meteor that exist
As provided above MBDA disagree that meteor carriage is an issue.
2] in contrast to yourself, i think F-35 will carry aam externally on A2A missions,
You are welcome to have your own opinion on whether F-35 will carry external AAM but everything we see from USAF training at Luke AFB indicates they are happy to fly clean on operationally representative training missions.
and i dont think anyone will bother trying for 6 aam internally.
Let me tell you how the program works. The partner nations have got together and voted on what they want included in Blk 4 mods moving forward. We know that 6 AAM carriage is a requested feature and the jet is capable of it.
3] compared to anyone except F-18
Why does anyone else matter, the only rival the F-35C has is the SH.
4] taranis X-47 B-2 all are in another category of rcs altogether,
you cant compare them with a fighter that needed control surfaces to be agile.
if they do run into fighter on a bomb run, write it off, its just drones anyway,
You are going to have to come up with some sources to claim on X-47 and Taranis. They are not operational UCAVs, merely demonstrators. They don’t have radar, full communications suites, targeting pods or internal targeting systems, countermeasures systems etc. Once you actually fit a UCAV with the systems it requires to go to war it will likely have a drastically different RCS.
As for B-2, there are so many figures going around regarding B-2 RCS that I do not believe we have one clear and definitive number but it is likely to at the very most equal to the fighters and likely be higher.
Ozair1] there is nothing to support the theory that a modified meteor will ever be bought, certainly not US.
Sure, the point is there is space for a BVR missile of any variety.
2] its notional, look up the word notional on google, its not planned
Testy… I didn’t give a time frame but it doesn’t matter. If Meteor is ever integrated then hurrah, if not it is no great loss.
3] he was referring to what f-35c dont have, kinetic performance
Compared to what please?
on standoff jamming support, either it requires or it doesnt,
if it is a requirement, the stand-off jam will be duly noted, and the jammers will require refueling,
and the entire package fighter support, nothing new.
Jamming would be mission/target dependent but as of today, there is no requirement for the F-35 for stand off jamming support. Given the USAF hasn’t operating a dedicated jammer since 1996, even though they had them for nearly 40 years before that, probably says they are pretty comfortable with their current arrangement. Yes USAF assets have used EA-6 support previously but still no dedicated aircraft operated by the USAF. Given F-35C will operate the same jammer and same jamming programs as F-35A and B then we can extrapolate that a jammer is not required. Even better, the USMC who also operated jamming aircraft for many years will be replacing dedicated jamming aircraft with F-35B. At some point they have requested that NGJ be integrated onto the airframe but I don’t remember a defined timeline.
the case when you can skip support is when using drones, they are expendable,
and to top it off will no doubt be designed with far lower rcs than anything attempting to achieve maneuverability
can achieve
Can you please point us to the drone that has a lower RCS than US 5th gen fighters? While you are at it, point to a drone that has the maneuverability to defeat a 5th gen aircraft? Or one that carries BVR missiles? Or one that doesn’t require constant satcom to communicate? Or one that doesn’t require GPS to navigate? Or one that after it fulfills all the above requirements will be affordable?
The irony of your statement is that by your own and others logic a low RCS aircraft cannot survive in an A2AD region anyway, so how is that in any way a valid option?
OzairAnd that’s the problem.. If you wanna do self-escort, then you can’t carry more than a pitiful load of 2x AIM-120 and one large bomb.. or go external, compromise the RCS and then you can easily use Super Bugs, instead.
Well two large bombs internal, alternatively you could go 3 AIM-120 and one large bomb or a host of smaller bombs, or when Blk 4 arrives do 4 AIM-120 and a large bomb or host of smaller bombs but that is beside the point…
The difference remains the jet is in a stealth configuration and hence is far less likely to be detected, when it is detected it is far less likely to be engaged, and when it is engaged that engagement is far less likely to be successful.
In fact, the best asset the F-35C may have in the battlespace is the SH as every radar in the AO will detect it and try to light it up.
No, it still needs Growlers.. US NAVY made it quote clear that the EW capability of the F-35 provides only a partial protection and that NGJ (or Growlers) will be required..
Careful who you claim is saying what, this is what Greenhart specifically said.
“The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain, It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth.”
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course
Good news is that F-35 doesn’t rely solely on stealth but has an advanced fusion engine, a longer range than SH, better sensors and communications equipment, is as manoeuvrable and can carry as great a war load when necessary.
S-300P/S-300V and Buk-M1.. These are late 80s systems.. definitely far away from true high-end threat environment..
LT Gen Davis didn’t mention the SAMs specifically other than saying double digit, Dave Majumdar made the leap to name those specific ones, but the point still stands and updating the SAM systems doesn’t really make that much of a difference as later versions of S-300 and S-400 still require X-band terminal guidance.
OzairANAO reports question the value of upgrading the Tiger ARH in Aussie service
Pretty damning indictment of the Tiger ARH
No surprise, the acquisition was doomed from the start when the Australian DoD recommended the AH-64 but were overruled by the Minister of Defence of the day who wanted to improve relations with Europe. Tiger and the MRH-90 were poor acquisition decisions and both against department recommendations.
OzairThe F-35 will need the same EW support and tanker support.. And when on internal load only, they will be sitting ducks with no A-A weaponry, at all, so they will also need escort, just like everyone else.
For starters F-35 with internal bay only has 2 AIM-120 (or Meteor when that is integrated).
Second, F-35 has its own EW already, it won’t need Growler support.
As for tanker support, it may require it but given its higher fuel load than SH it will require less tanker support. The likelihood is that tanker support will come from SH…
Western doctrine is now for self-escort strike operations. While some form of OCA may be present in the AO packages are expected to fight their way in and out with dependence on full time escort.
The recent Marine quote that was posted in this thread a couple of pages ago says it all
One scenario called for a four-ship of F-35Bs to launch from an amphibious assault ship into a “double-digit” (examples might include S-300 or Buk-M1) surface-to-air missile and high-end fighter threat environment to hit a strategic target. While such a mission might be “marginally successful”—at best—when flown by a dozen or more aircraft like the Hornet, the four F-35Bs completed the scenario with near impunity. “It was like watching a pack of dogs going after something,” Davis said.
Ozair??? None of the countries in the region of South China Sea are major US trading partners.. except mainland China… but anyway, even the shipping routes from the US to China and Taiwan do not cross the SCS, at all.. still can’t see what the US have lost in that piece of the world.. :confused:
This really isn’t the thread to discuss US trade and its impact on US foreign policy. If you want to discuss it further I am happy to and I am sure it will be a fun filled discussion given the varied opinions present here, just need to start another thread.
OzairNo, actually we have more.
RAF has 223 planes, AMI has 223 planes but MMI has still its Harrier while both RAF and RN have none.
16 aircraft, which includes two training jets…
The fact is that UK plan to buy F-35 just as harrier substitute while has not even looked to the possibility to acquire the A version of it as a Tornado substitute AFAIK, hence my surprise.
Incorrect,
Speaking at the Royal International Air Tattoo on 8 July, where a British F-35B flew, along with US Marine Corps aircraft and US Air Force F-35As, Air Cdre Linc Taylor, assistant chief of staff for capability delivery, combat air said the UK’s commitment to a full acquisition of 138 aircraft may leave room for discussions on also operating the conventional take-off and landing variant.
They have a young Eurofighter fleet and will likely be the second largest operator of the F-35B. The F-35A will almost certainly be in production until 2035 and probably longer so they have a good 20 years to decide if they want to order it. As the above link states, there is no rush and the UK has plenty of time to consider the F-35A and the ratio of their F-35 fleet.
OzairFor the remaining 20% they add Growlers…
Permissible environment could have some significance when you talk about A-10 or Harriers, while all other planes would have both the cinematics, armament and ECM features to perform high risk missions with great chances of both success than survival…
So it’s a question about both entry “by force” or through stealth or better even about how much of the one and of the other would constitute the perfect mix.
And not just now but between ten and twenty years…
Suggest you read the current GAO findings on how the SH is deficient in high threat environments…
It will take more than USN airpower to assist SH to penetrate A2AD regions. They will likely require a significant Tomahawk outlay and probably assistance from USAF tankers and potentially land based bombers.
As with the RAF description of how F-35B will assist Eurofighter, so too would F-35C assist SH in that environment.
OzairWhat have the US to do with Spratleys is beyond me.. :confused: Not their business, anyway..
Trade, pure and simple. Major US trading partners lie in that region and therefore this strong economic interest creates strong political and subsequent military interest.
Fact is that we’ll also acquire Storm Shadow for our own Eurofighter and acquire instead both F-35A and F-35B for AMI and obvioulsy F-35B for MMI.
So there are surely two very different visions there.
If we look at tactical jets in service, the UK has 223 aircraft (138 Eurofighter, 81 Tornado, 4 F-35B) while Italy has, amazingly, also 223 aircraft (83 Eurofighter plus 13 on order, 75 Tornado, 6 F-35 and 46 AMX).
The British will therefore have more Eurofighter and will continue to have more Eurofighter for the foreseeable future. We could go into more detail about future orders and training fleet etc but the numbers are pretty straight forward.
Ozairfact is, pretty much any war fought lately (and probably for quite some time to come as well) was-is-will be in such environments… the speech about “near peer adversary” is more than unlikely to happen,
Fact is you’re completely wrong. The US sees a real and present need to prepare for and fight a near peer adversary. The US Military is mandated by congress to prepare for that type of conflict. In fact only in the last few years have they dropped the requirement to fight a near peer on two separate fronts.
As for whether a near peer conflict will occur, the chances are now higher today (albeit small) than they have been for the last 25 years, especially with a resurgent Russia and China expanding into the Spratleys. The USN has been lucky they have not been required to send SH into high threat zones over the last 15 years, especially given the identified weaknesses that SH has in that environment.
so, reducing (or even canning) the C version wouldn’t have much of an impact on USN warfighting capabilities in years to come (pretty much same for the A version, only the B would be a real leap forward from the Harrier, but then again, even with Harriers, how many times did the Marines deploy to spots where they absolutely needed its STOVL capabilities? )
Losing F-35C would deny USN airpower the ability to enter an A2AD region without significant additional support and assistance. It is that simple. You may not see a need for them to do that but they do and they have the mandate to prepare for that type of conflict.
I disagree, it would be highly disruptive, push up program costs and risk death spiral.
Given the SDD phase is 95% complete the rest of the cost for F-35 is essentially acquisition and in fact losing F-35C would see that 95% SDD phase completion become approx 99% completion.
Not having to manufacture F-35C wouldn’t be more than a dent in the program and wouldn’t realistically impact overall production numbers. It was always the orphan variant with only one likely customer.
Congress controls the purse. The executive branch controls what gets spent out of the purse. So, yes, Trump does control more than you suggest.
FBW understands correctly how the funding is allocated and subsequently spent. Suggest you read up on how the US DoD receives funding, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dod-budget-federal-legislation-07303/
As per the Constitution, Congress are the ones who ultimately control money in the US system. The President merely signs the paper Congress put in front of him.
The USN is in a position where they are facing in the next decade:
Strike fighter shortfall
SSN shortfall
Maintenance shortfall
SSBN (Columbia Class) budgeting
Burke flight III production
And the new moronic 355 ship navy that there is no budget forI could see the Navy budget squeezed to where they continue production of the F-18 E/F.
Don’t forget LX(R) which is currently eleven ships at US$1.5 billion each but with operational demands the USN see a need for almost twice that number.
Sign In
